|
|
Type:
|
Ordinance
|
Status:
|
Passed
|
|
Title:
|
Declaration of official intent to issue City of Chicago General Obligation and Refunding Bonds, Series 2015, levy and collection of annual tax and amendment of Municipal Code Section 2-32-031 to provide for selection and retention of dissemination agents
|
CHICAGO June 17, 2015 To the President and Members of the City Council: Your Committee on Finance having had under consideration A substitute ordinance would evidence the City's intent to issue City of Chicago General Obligation and Refunding Bonds, Series 2015, to approve the issuance of City of Chicago General Obligation and Refunding Bonds, Series 2015, and the authority to amend Chapter โข ' 2-32 of the Municipal Code of Chicago concerning dissemination agents. 02015-4194. Amount of Bonds not to exceed: Having had the same under advisement, begs leave to report and recommend that your Honorable Body pass the proposed Ordinance Transmitted Herewith This recommendation was concurred in by of members of the committee with 1 Alderman Burke abstains under the provisions of Rule 14 Alderman Waguespack votes no Chairman Respectfully submitted Document No. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF CHICAGO OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY OF CHICAGO RAHM EMANUEL MAYOR May 20, 2015 TO THE HONORABLE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO Ladies and Gentlemen: At the request of the Chief Financial Officer, I transmit herewith an ordinance authorizing inducement language for an issuance of 2015 General Obligation bonds and associated authority to select a dissemination agent. Your favorable consideration of this ordinance will be appreciated. Very truly yours, c Mayor i I I I I Substitute Ordinance An Ordinance providing for the issuance of General Obligation Bonds of the City of Chicago, for the levy and collection of a direct annual tax sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on said Bonds and certain other obligations of the City; authorizing the execution and delivery of certain financial security and credit enhancement agreements in connection with existing agreements and transactions involving City assets, the securing of such agreements and transactions and the termination of such agreements and transactions and the repurchase of such assets; expressing official intent regarding expenditures from the funds of the City to be reimbursed from proceeds of obligations to be issued by the City and amending Section 2-32-031 of the Municipal Code of Chicago to provide for the selection and retention of one or more dissemination agents in connection with continuing disclosure requirements pertaining to certain City debt obligations. Whereas, the City of Chicago (the "City') is a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Illinois and a home rule unit under Article VII of the Illinois Constitution of 1970; and Whereas, the City has heretofore (i) authorized the borrowing of money pursuant to one or more line of credit agreements to provide funds for working capital (including the payment of the redemption price of City debt obligations and costs incurred in connection with the conversion of variable rate debt of the City to fixed rate debt) or interim financing for capital projects (the "Line of Credit Indebtedness') and (ii) established a commercial paper program authorizing the issuance of its general obligation commercial paper notes from time to time (the "General Obligation Commercial Paper Notes'); and Whereas, (i) the Line of Credit Indebtedness incurred and outstanding from time to time and (ii) the General Obligation Commercial Paper Notes currently or hereafter outstanding from time to time (collectively, the "Outstanding Line and CP Indebtedness") mature and are subject to redemption as provided in the respective proceedings authorizing the Outstanding Line and CP Indebtedness; and Whereas, the City has determined that it is advisable and necessary, in order to provide increased financial flexibility and protection to the City in connection with the existing sale/leaseback transaction for the Orange Line rapid transit rail line and related transit facilities (all agreements entered into by the City in connection with such sale/leaseback transaction being collectively referred to herein as the "Financing Transaction'), to authorize (i) providing various forms of security and credit enhancement for the Financing Transaction and (ii) termination by the City, whether pursuant to exercise of a purchase option or otherwise, of the Financing Transaction and repurchase of the assets that are the subject of the Financing Transaction, all as provided in Section 19 hereof; and Whereas, it is in the best interests of the inhabitants of the City and necessary for the welfare of the government and affairs of the City to authorize (i) the payment or the refunding of all or a portion of the Outstanding Line and CP Indebtedness, (ii) the reimbursement of the Corporate Fund of the City for amounts expended in connection with the termination of one or more interest rate exchange agreements relating to certain sales tax revenue bonds of the City (the "Sales Tax Swap Termination'), and (iii) the performance by the City of any of the Financing Transaction Undertakings (as defined in Section 19 hereof), in order to achieve debt service savings for the City, restructure the City's general obligation indebtedness or secure or terminate the City's obligations in connection with the Financing Transaction (collectively, the "Debt Management Purposes'); and Whereas, the cost of the Debt Management Purposes is estimated to be not less than $1,100,000,000 and the City expects to pay a portion of such costs by borrowing money and issuing its general obligation bonds in one or more series and at one or more times in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $1,100,000,000 (plus the amount of any original issue discount as herein provided); and Whereas, the City has determined that it is advisable and necessary to authorize the borrowing of the sum necessary at this time for any or all of the purposes of (i) paying costs of or reimbursing the City for the payment of costs of the Debt Management Purposes, including capitalizing or funding such interest on the bonds herein authorized for said purpose as may be necessary and (ii) paying the expenses of issuing the bonds herein authorized for the purposes described herein, and in evidence thereof to authorize the issuance of its General Obligation Bonds, in one or more series and at one or more times as herein provided (the "Bonds'), such borrowing being for a proper public purpose and in the public interest, and the City, by virtue of its constitutional home rule powers and all laws applicable thereto, has the power to issue such Bonds; and Whereas, the Bonds may include one or more series of bonds the interest on which is, as designated by series, either includible or excludable from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"); and Whereas, the City has financed and further intends to finance the costs described in Exhibit A hereto (collectively, the "Reimbursement Costs') from sources other than proceeds of the Bonds; and Whereas, all or a portion of the expenditures relating to the Reimbursement Costs (the "Expenditures') (i) have been paid within sixty days prior to the date of passage and approval of this Ordinance or (ii) will be paid on or after the date of passage and approval of this Ordinance; and Whereas, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself or pay for the Expenditures with proceeds of an obligation or obligations (the "Obligations') expected to be issued as general obligation bonds of the City other than the Bonds, some or all of which will be tax-exempt under the provisions of the Code; and -2- Whereas, pursuant to Rule 15c2-12 ofthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC), the City has entered into continuing disclosure agreements (the "Continuing Disclosure Agreements') with respect to certain outstanding general obligation bonds and revenue bonds issued by the City, under which the City has agreed to provide annual disclosure of financial information as well as disclosure of certain reportable events upon the occurrence of such events, and it is anticipated that the City may enter into additional Continuing Disclosure Agreements with respect to future issues of City debt obligations as required under Rule 15c2-12; and Whereas, the City desires to retain one or more dissemination agents from time to time for purposes of ensuring timely compliance with the requirements of the Continuing Disclosure Agreements; now, therefore, Be It Ordained By the City Council of the City of Chicago: Section 1. The City Council of the City (the "City Council'), after a public meeting heretofore held on this Ordinance by the Committee on Finance of the City Council, pursuant to proper notice and in accordance with the findings and recommendations of such Committee, hereby finds that all of the recitals contained in the preambles to this Ordinance are full, true and correct and does incorporate them into this Ordinance by this reference. Section 2. There shall be borrowed on the credit of and for and on behalf of the City in one or more series and at one or more times the sum of not to exceed $1,100,000,000 plus an amount equal to the amount of any net original issue discount used in the marketing of the Bonds (not to exceed 15 percent of the principal amount of each series thereof) for the purposes aforesaid; and the Bonds shall be issued from time to time in said aggregate principal amount, or such lesser amount, as may be determined by the City's Chief Financial Officer or the City Comptroller (each such officer being hereinafter referred to as an "Authorized Officer"). All or any portion of the Bonds may be issued as Bonds bearing interest at fixed rates and paying interest semiannually as described below (the "Current Interest Bonds'). Each series of Current Interest Bonds shall be dated such date as shall be agreed upon by an Authorized Officer and the purchasers of such Current Interest Bonds, shall be in fully registered form, shall be in such minimum denominations and integral multiples thereof as shall be agreed upon by an Authorized Officer and the purchasers of such Current Interest Bonds (but no single Bond shall represent installments of principal maturing on more than one date), and shall be numbered as determined by the applicable Bond Registrar (as hereinafter defined and including the hereinafter defined Trustee). All or any portion of the Bonds may be issued as Bonds payable in one payment on a fixed date {"Capital Appreciation Bonds'). Each series of Capital Appreciation Bonds shall be dated the date of issuance thereof and shall also bear the date of authentication, shall be in fully registered form, shall be numbered as determined by the applicable Bond Registrar, and shall be in denominations equal to the original principal amounts of such Capital Appreciation Bonds or any integral multiple thereof, each such original principal amount representing Compound Accreted Value (as hereinafter defined) at maturity (the "Maturity Amount') of such minimum -3- amounts and integral multiples thereof as shall be agreed upon by an Authorized Officer and the purchasers of such Capital Appreciation Bonds (but no single Bond shall represent Compound Accreted Value maturing on more than one date). As used herein, the "Compound Accreted Value" of a Capital Appreciation Bond on any date of determination shall be an amount equal to the original principal amount (or integral multiple thereof) plus an investment return accrued to the date of such determination at a semiannual compounding rate which is necessary to produce the yield to maturity borne by such Capital Appreciation Bond (the "Yield to Maturity'). The Bonds may be initially issued as Capital Appreciation Bonds containing provisions for the conversion of the Compound Accreted Value of such Bonds into Current Interest Bonds (the "Convertible Bonds') at such time following the initial issuance as shall be approved by an Authorized Officer. While in the form of Capital Appreciation Bonds, such Convertible Bonds shall be subject to all of the provisions and limitations of this Ordinance relating to Capital Appreciation Bonds, and while in the form of Current Interest Bonds, such Convertible Bonds shall be subject to all of the provisions and limitations of this Ordinance relating to Current Interest Bonds. In particular, when Convertible Bonds are in the form of Capital Appreciation Bonds prior to their conversion to Current Interest Bonds, the transfer, exchange and replacement provisions of this Ordinance with respect to Capital Appreciation Bonds shall apply to such Convertible Bonds; provided that the Convertible Bonds delivered in the form of Capital Appreciation Bonds in connection with any such transfer, exchange or replacement shall have identical provisions for conversion to Current Interest Bonds as set forth in the Convertible Bonds being transferred, exchanged or replaced. In connection with the issuance and sale of any Convertible Bonds, the terms and provisions relating to the conversion of the Compound Accreted Value of such Convertible Bonds into Current Interest Bonds shall be as approved by an Authorized Officer at the time of sale of such Convertible Bonds. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, any series of Bonds may be issued as Capital Appreciation Bonds, Current Interest Bonds, Convertible Bonds or any combination thereof. All or any portion of the Bonds may be issued and sold from time to time as a direct purchase by holders (the "Direct Purchase Bonds'). The Direct Purchase Bonds shall be sold as provided in Section 12 hereof. Each series of Bonds may be issued pursuant to, and have such terms and provisions as are set forth in a trust indenture between the City and a bank or trust company selected by an Authorized Officer (the "Trustee'). The Mayor or an Authorized Officer is hereby authorized to enter into one or more such trust indentures on behalf of the City. Each such trust indenture shall be in substantially the form of the Trust Indenture attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Trust Indenture') and hereby incorporated herein by reference, but with such revisions in text as the Mayor or the Authorized Officer executing the same shall determine are necessary or desirable, the execution thereof, and any amendment thereto, by the Mayor or such Authorized Officer to evidence the City Council's approval of all such revisions, which revisions may include, among other things, revisions required (i) to reflect the issuance of the Bonds as Capital Appreciation Bonds, Convertible Bonds or Direct Purchase Bonds and (ii) in the case of the issuance of a series of Bonds the interest on which is includable in the gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes. With respect to any series of Bonds issued pursuant to a Trust Indenture, in the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Ordinance and such Trust -4- Indenture (including in the form of Bond attached thereto as an exhibit), the terms of such Trust Indenture shall be deemed to control. The principal of the Bonds of each series shall become due and payable on or before the earlier of (i) January 1, 2057, or (ii) 40 years after the. date of issuance thereof. Each series of Current Interest Bonds shall bear interest at a rate or rates and each series of Capital Appreciation Bonds shall have Yields to Maturity not to exceed 18 percent per annum. Any portion of the Bonds may be issued as obligations the interest on which is not excludable from the gross income of the owner thereof for federal income tax purposes if determined by an Authorized Officer to be beneficial to the City. Each Current Interest Bond shall bear interest from the later of its date or the most recent interest payment date to which interest has been paid or duly provided for, until the principal amount of such Bond is paid, such interest (computed upon the basis of a 360-day period of twelve 30-day months) being payable on January 1 and July 1 of each year, commencing on such January 1 or July 1 as shall be determined by an Authorized Officer at the time of the sale of each series of Current Interest Bonds. Interest on each Current Interest Bond shall be paid to the person in whose name such Current Interest Bond is registered at the close of business on the 15th day of the month next preceding the interest payment date, by check or draft of the applicable Bond Registrar, or, at the option of any registered owner of $1,000,000 or more in aggregate principal amount of Current Interest Bonds of a series, by wire transfer of immediately available funds to such bank in the continental United States of America as the registered owner of such Current Interest Bonds shall request in writing to the applicable Bond Registrar. Each Capital Appreciation Bond shall accrue interest from its date at the rate per annum compounded semiannually on each January 1 and July 1, commencing on such January 1 or July 1 as determined by an Authorized Officer at the time of sale of such Capital Appreciation Bonds, which will produce the Yield to Maturity identified therein until the maturity date thereof. Interest on the Capital Appreciation Bonds shall be payable only at the respective maturity dates thereof. The principal of the Current Interest Bonds and the Compound Accreted Value of the Capital Appreciation Bonds and any redemption premium shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America upon presentation and surrender thereof at the designated corporate trust office of the applicable Bond Registrar. Each of the Bonds shall be designated "General Obligation Bonds, Series ," with such additions, modifications or revisions as shall be determined to be necessary by an Authorized Officer at the time of the sale of such Bonds to reflect the calendar year of issuance of the Bonds, the order of sale of the Bonds, the specific series of the Bonds, whether the Bonds are being issued on a taxable basis, whether the Bonds are Current Interest Bonds, Capital Appreciation Bonds, Convertible Bonds or Direct Purchase Bonds, and any other authorized features of the Bonds determined by an Authorized Officer as desirable to be reflected in the title of the Bonds being issued and sold. -5- The seal of the City or a facsimile thereof shall be affixed to or printed on each of the Bonds, and the Bonds shall be executed by the manual or facsimile signature of the Mayor and attested by the manual or facsimile signature of the City Clerk, and in case any officer whose signature shall appear on any Bond shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of such Bond, such signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all proposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery. As used in this Ordinance, "City Clerk" shall mean the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City or any Deputy City Clerk or other person that may lawfully take a specific action or perform a specific duty prescribed for the City Clerk pursuant to this Ordinance. All Bonds shall have thereon a certificate of authentication substantially in the form hereinafter set forth duly executed by the applicable Bond Registrar as authenticating agent of the City and showing the date of authentication. No Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under this Ordinance unless and until such certificate of authentication shall have been duly executed by the applicable Bond Registrar by manual signature, and such certificate of authentication upon any such Bond shall be conclusive evidence that such Bond has been authenticated and delivered under this Ordinance. The certificate of authentication on any Bond shall be deemed to have been executed by the applicable Bond Registrar or Trustee if signed by an authorized officer of such Bond Registrar or Trustee, but it shall not be necessary that the same officer sign the certificate of authentication on all of the Bonds issued hereunder. Section 3. (a) Registration and Transfer. The City shall cause books (the "Bond Register") for the registration and for the transfer of each series of Bonds as provided in this Ordinance to be kept at the designated corporate trust office of a bank or trust company designated by an Authorized Officer, and which shall, with respect to a series of Bonds issued pursuant to an Indenture, shall be the Trustee for such series of Bonds (the "Bond Registrar"), as the registrar for the City in connection with such series of Bonds. The City is authorized to prepare multiple Bond blanks executed by the City for use in the transfer and exchange of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of any Bond at the designated corporate trust office of the applicable Bond Registrar, duly endorsed by, or accompanied by a written instrument or instruments of transfer in form satisfactory to such Bond Registrar and duly executed by the registered owner or its attorney duly authorized in writing, the City shall execute and such Bond Registrar shall authenticate, date and deliver in the name of the transferee or transferees (a) in the case of any Current Interest Bond, one or more fully registered Current Interest Bonds ofthe same series, interest rate and maturity of authorized denominations, for a like principal amount or (b) in the case of any Capital Appreciation Bond, a new fully registered Capital Appreciation Bond or Bonds of the same series, maturity and Yield to Maturity of authorized denominations, for a like aggregate original'principal amount of Capital Appreciation Bond or Bonds of the same series, maturity and Yield to Maturity of other authorized denominations. Any Current Interest Bond or Bonds may be exchanged at said office of the applicable Bond Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of the same series, interest rate and maturity of other authorized denominations. Any Capital Appreciation Bond or Bonds may be exchanged at said office of the applicable Bond Registrar for a like aggregate original principal amount of Capital -6- Appreciation Bond or Bonds of the same series, maturity and Yield to Maturity of other authorized denominations. The execution by the City of any fully registered Bond shall constitute full and due authorization of such Bond, and the applicable Bond Registrar shall thereby be authorized to authenticate, date and deliver such Bond; provided that (a) the principal amount of Current Interest Bonds of each series, maturity and interest rate authenticated by the applicable Bond Registrar shall not exceed the authorized principal amount of Current Interest Bonds for such series, maturity and interest rate less previous retirements and (b) the aggregate original principal amount of outstanding Capital Appreciation Bonds of each series, maturity and Yield to Maturity authenticated by the applicable Bond Registrar shall not exceed the authorized aggregate original principal amount of Capital Appreciation Bonds of such series, maturity and Yield to Maturity less previous retirements. The applicable Bond Registrar shall not be required to transfer or exchange (a) any Bond after notice calling such Bond for redemption has been mailed, or (b) any Bond during a period of 15 days next preceding mailing of a notice of redemption of such Bond; provided, however, that provisions relating to the transfer or exchange of Bonds of a series shall be as determined by an Authorized Officer at the time of the sale thereof and may be set forth in a notification of sale as described in Section 12 hereof or in the Trust Indenture as authorized in Section 2 hereof. The person in whose name any Bond shall be registered shall be deemed and regarded as the absolute owner thereof for all purposes, and payment of the principal of, redemption premium, if any, Compound Accreted Value of or interest on any Bond, as appropriate, shall be made only to or upon the order of the registered owner thereof or its legal representative. All such payments shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon such Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No service charge shall be made for any transfer or exchange of Bonds, but the City or the applicable Bond Registrar may require payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge that may be imposed in connection with any transfer or exchange of Bonds, except that no such payment may be required in the case of the issuance of a Bond or Bonds for the unredeemed portion of a Bond surrendered for redemption. Book-Entry Only System. If so determined and directed by an Authorized Officer in connection with the sale of any of the Bonds, such Bonds may be issued in book-entry only form. In connection with the issuance of Bonds in book-entry only form, an Authorized Officer is authorized to execute and deliver to the book-entry depository selected by such Authorized Officer such depository's standard form of representation letter. If any of the Bonds are registered in the name of a securities depository which uses a book-entry system, the standing of the beneficial owner to enforce any of the covenants herein may be established through the books and records of such securities depository or a participant therein. Bonds Lost, Destroyed, etc. If any Bond, whether in temporary or definitive form, is lost (whether by reason of theft or otherwise), destroyed (whether by mutilation, damage, in whole or in part, or otherwise) or improperly cancelled, the applicable Bond Registrar may authenticate a new Bond of like series, date, maturity date, interest rate (or, in the case of -7- Capital Appreciation Bonds, Yield to Maturity), denomination and principal amount (or, in the case of Capital Appreciation Bonds, original principal amount) and bearing a number not contemporaneously outstanding; provided that (i) in the case of any mutilated Bond, such mutilated Bond shall first be surrendered to the applicable Bond Registrar, and (ii) in the case of any lost Bond or Bond destroyed in whole, there shall be first furnished to the applicable Bond Registrar evidence of such loss or destruction, together with indemnification of the City and such Bond Registrar, satisfactory to such Bond Registrar. If any lost, destroyed or improperly cancelled Bond shall have matured or is about to mature, or has been called for redemption, instead of issuing a duplicate Bond, the applicable Bond Registrar shall pay the same without surrender thereof if there shall be first furnished to such Bond Registrar evidence of such loss, destruction or cancellation, together with indemnity, satisfactory to it. Upon the issuance of any substitute Bond, the applicable Bond Registrar may require the payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge that may be imposed in relation thereto. (d) Redemption. The Bonds may be made subject to redemption prior to maturity at the option of the City, in whole or in part on any date, at such times and at such redemption prices (to be expressed as a percentage of the principal amount of Current Interest Bonds being redeemed and expressed as a percentage of the Compound Accreted Value of Capital Appreciation Bonds to be redeemed or as a formula as described below) not to exceed 120 percent, plus, in the case of Current Interest Bonds, accrued interest to the date of redemption, as determined by an Authorized Officer at the time of the sale thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, such 120 percent limitation on the redemption price of Bonds shall not apply where the redemption price is based upon a formula designed to compensate the owner of the Bonds to be redeemed based upon prevailing market conditions on the date fixed for redemption, commonly known as a "make-whole" redemption price (the "Make-Whole Redemption Price'). At the time of sale of the Bonds, an Authorized Officer shall determine the provisions of the formula to be used to establish any Make-Whole Redemption Price, which may vary depending on whether the Bonds are issued on a taxable or tax-exempt basis. An Authorized Officer shall confirm and transmit the applicable Make-Whole Redemption Price on such dates and to such parties as shall be necessary to effectuate such redemption. If fewer than all of the outstanding Bonds of a series are to be optionally redeemed, the Bonds to be called shall be called from such maturities and interest rates of such series as may be determined by an Authorized Officer. Certain of the Bonds of a series may be made subject to mandatory redemption, at par and accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, as determined by an Authorized Officer at the time of the sale thereof. An Authorized Officer is hereby authorized to sell (at a price determined by such Authorized Officer to be in the best interests of the City) or waive any right the City may have to call any of the Bonds for optional redemption, in whole or in part, and is hereby further authorized to expend the proceeds of any such sales for any purpose for which the proceeds of the Bonds are authorized to be expended and for the payment or prepayment of any City debt obligations whether issued before or after the date of adoption of this Ordinance, all as -8- determined by an Authorized Officer; provided however, to the extent that interest on such Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes, such expenditures shall not adversely affect such exclusion. If determined to be necessary or appropriate, an Authorized Officer is authorized to solicit the consent of holders of outstanding Bonds to any such sale or waiver. At the time of sale of Bonds of a series, an Authorized Officer is authorized to determine the manner of redeeming such Bonds, either by lot in the manner hereinafter provided or pro-rata in the manner determined by an Authorized Officer at the time of sale, in the event less than all of the Bonds of the same series, maturity and interest rate are to be redeemed. The Current Interest Bonds shall be redeemed only in amounts equal to the respective minimum authorized denominations and integral multiples thereof and the Capital Appreciation Bonds shall be redeemed only in amounts representing the respective minimum authorized Maturity Amounts and integral multiples thereof. In the event of the redemption of fewer than all the Bonds of the same series, maturity and interest rate by lot, the aggregate principal amount or Maturity Amount (as appropriate) thereof to be redeemed shall be the minimum authorized denomination or Maturity Amount (as appropriate) for such series or an integral multiple thereof, and the applicable Bond Registrar shall assign to each Bond of such series, maturity and interest rate, a distinctive number for each minimum authorized denomination or Maturity Amount (as appropriate) of such Bond and shall select by lot from the numbers so assigned as many numbers as, at such minimum authorized denomination or Maturity Amount (as appropriate) for each number, shall equal the principal amount or Maturity Amount (as appropriate) of such Bonds to be redeemed. In such case, the Bonds to be redeemed shall be those to which were assigned numbers so selected; provided that only so much of the principal amount or Maturity Amount (as appropriate) of each Bond shall be redeemed as shall equal such minimum authorized denomination or Maturity Amount (as appropriate) for each number assigned to it and so selected. In the event of the redemption of fewer than all Bonds of the same series, maturity and interest rate on a pro-rata basis, if the Bonds are held in book-entry form at the time of redemption, at the time of sale of the Bonds, an Authorized Officer is authorized to direct the Bond Registrar to instruct the book-entry depository to select the specific Bonds within such maturity and interest rate for redemption pro-rata among such Bonds. The City shall have no responsibility or obligation to ensure that the book-entry depository properly selects such Bonds for redemption. The City shall, at least 45 days prior to any optional redemption date (unless a shorter time period shall be satisfactory to the applicable Bond Registrar), notify the applicable Bond Registrar of such redemption date and of the principal amount or Maturity Amount (as appropriate) of Bonds of such series to be redeemed. In connection with any mandatory redemption of Bonds of a series as authorized above, the principal amounts of Bonds (or the Compound Accreted Value of the Capital Appreciation Bonds) of such series to be mandatorily redeemed in each year may be reduced through the earlier optional redemption thereof, with any partial optional redemptions of such Bonds of such series credited against future mandatory redemption requirements in such order of the mandatory redemption dates as an Authorized Officer may determine. In addition, on or prior to -9- the 60th day preceding any mandatory redemption date of Bonds of a series, the applicable Bond Registrar may, and if directed by an Authorized Officer shall, purchase Bonds of such series required to be retired on such mandatory redemption date at such prices as an Authorized Officer shall determine. Any such Bonds so purchased shall be cancelled and the principal amount (or Compound Accreted Value, as appropriate) thereof shall be credited against the payment required on such next mandatory redemption date with respect to such series of Bonds. The applicable Bond Registrar shall promptly notify the City in writing of the Bonds, or portions thereof, selected for redemption and, in the case of any Bond selected for partial redemption, the principal amount, Compound Accreted Value or Maturity Amount (as appropriate) thereof, and the interest rate thereof to be redeemed. Subject to the limitation on redemption price set forth above, the terms of such redemption shall be determined by an Authorized Officer at the time of sale of the Bonds of such series and may be set forth in a notification of sale as described in Section 12 hereof or in the Trust Indenture as authorized in Section 2 hereof. Section 4. Unless waived by any owner of Bonds to be redeemed, notice of the call for any such redemption shall be given by the applicable Bond Registrar on behalf of the City by mailing the redemption notice by first class mail at least 30 days and not more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the registered owner of the Bond or Bonds to be redeemed at the address shown on the applicable Bond Register or at such other address as is furnished in writing by such registered owner to such Bond Registrar, but the failure to mail any such notice or any defect therein as to any Bond shall not affect the validity of the proceedings for the redemption of any other Bond. Any notice of redemption mailed as provided in this Section shall be conclusively presumed to have been given whether or not actually received by the addressee. All notices of redemption shall state: the series designation of the Bonds to be redeemed, the redemption date, the redemption price, or in the case of a redemption of Bonds at a Make-Whole Redemption Price, a description of the formula by which the redemption price shall be determined, if less than all outstanding Bonds of a series are to be redeemed, the identification (and, in the case of partial redemption, the respective principal amounts, interest rates, Compound Accreted Values or Maturity Amounts) of the Bonds to be redeemed, -10- that on the redemption date the redemption price will become due and payable upon each such Bond or portion thereof called for redemption, and that interest thereon shall cease to accrue from and after said date, the place where such Bonds are to be surrendered for payment of the redemption price, which place of payment shall be the designated corporate trust office of the applicable Bond Registrar, and such other information as shall be deemed necessary by the applicable Bond Registrar at the time such notice is given to comply with law, regulation or industry standard. With respect to an optional redemption of any series of Bonds, such notice may state that said redemption is conditioned upon the receipt by the applicable Bond Registrar on or prior to the date fixed for redemption of moneys sufficient to pay the redemption price of the Bonds of such series. If such moneys are not so received, such redemption notice shall be of no force and effect, the City shall not redeem such Bonds and the applicable Bond Registrar shall give notice, in the same manner in which the notice of redemption was given, that such moneys were not so received and that such Bonds will not be redeemed. Unless the notice of redemption shall be made conditional as provided above, on or prior to any redemption date for a series of Bonds, the City shall deposit with the applicable Bond Registrar an amount of money sufficient to pay the redemption price of all the Bonds or portions thereof of such series which are to be redeemed on that date. Notice of redemption having been given as aforesaid, the Bonds, or portions thereof, so to be redeemed shall, on the redemption date, become due and payable at the redemption price therein specified, and from and after such date (unless the City shall default in the payment of the redemption price or unless, in the event of a conditional notice as described above, the necessary moneys were not deposited) such Bonds, or portions thereof, shall cease to bear, accrue or compound interest. Upon sunender of such Bonds for redemption in accordance with said notice, such Bonds shall be paid by the applicable Bond Registrar at the redemption price. Installments of interest due on or prior to the redemption date shall be payable as herein provided for payment of interest. Upon surrender for any partial redemption (i) of any Current Interest Bond, there shall be prepared for the registered owner a new Current Interest Bond or Bonds of the same series, interest and maturity in the amount of the unpaid principal or (ii) of any Capital Appreciation Bond, there shall be prepared for the registered owner a new Capital Appreciation Bond or Bonds of the same series, Yield to Maturity and maturity date in the amount of the unpaid Maturity Amount. If any Current Interest Bond, or portion thereof, called for redemption shall not be so paid upon surrender thereof for redemption, the principal shall, until paid, bear interest from the redemption date at the rate borne by such Bond, or portion thereof, so called for redemption. If any Capital Appreciation Bond, or portion thereof, called for redemption shall not be so paid upon surrender thereof for redemption, the Compound Accreted Value at such redemption date shall continue to accrue interest from such redemption date at the Yield to Maturity borne by such Capital Appreciation Bond, or portion thereof, so called for redemption. All Bonds which -11- have been redeemed shall be cancelled and destroyed by the applicable Bond Registrar and shall not be reissued. If any Bond is not presented for payment when the principal amount, Compound Accreted Value or Maturity Amount thereof becomes due, either at maturity or at a date fixed for redemption thereof or otherwise, and if moneys sufficient to pay such Bond are held by the applicable Bond Registrar for the benefit of the registered owner of such Bond, such Bond Registrar shall hold such moneys for the benefit of the registered owner of such Bond without liability to the registered owner for interest. The registered owner of such Bond thereafter shall be restricted exclusively to such funds for satisfaction of any claims relating to such Bond. Section 5. The Current Interest Bonds and the Capital Appreciation Bonds of each series shall be prepared in substantially the following forms with such insertions and revisions as shall be necessary to reflect the terms and provisions of the sale of the Bonds of such series pursuant to Section 12 hereof; provided that if the text of any Bond is to be printed in its entirety on the front side of such Bond, then the text shown or appearing on the reverse side of such Bond shall replace paragraph [2] and the legend, "See Reverse Side for Additional Provisions," shall be omitted. The Convertible Bonds shall be prepared incorporating the provisions of the forms of Capital Appreciation Bonds and Current Interest Bonds set forth below as necessary to reflect the terms and provisions of the sale of the Convertible Bonds pursuant to Section 12 hereof. All Bonds may be prepared with such insertions and revisions as shall be necessary in connection with the issuance of such Bonds as Direct Purchase Bonds. -12- [Form of Current Interest Bond โ Front Side] Registered No. United States of America State of Illinois City of Chicago General Obligation Bond Series See Reverse Side for Additional Provisions Interest Rate: Maturity Date: January 1, 20. Registered Owner: Principal Amount: The City of Chicago (the "City") hereby acknowledges itself to owe and for value received promises to pay to the Registered Owner identified above, or registered assigns as hereinafter provided, on the Maturity Date identified above, the Principal Amount identified above and to pay interest (computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months) on such Principal Amount from the later of the date of this Bond or the most recent interest payment date to which interest has been paid at the Interest Rate per annum set forth above on January 1 and July 1 of each year commencing 1, 20 , until said Principal Amount is paid. Principal of this Bond and redemption premium, if any, shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America upon presentation and surrender at the designated corporate trust office of , Chicago, Illinois, as bond registrar and paying agent (the "Bond Registrar"). Payment of the installments of interest shall be made to the Registered Owner hereof as shown on the registration books of the City maintained by the Bond Registrar at the close of business on the 15th day of the month next preceding each interest payment date and shall be paid by check or draft of the Bond Registrar mailed to the address of such Registered Owner as it appears on such registration books or at such other address furnished in writing by such Registered Owner to the Bond Registrar or, at the option of any Registered Owner of $1,000,000 or more in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, by wire transfer of immediately available funds to such bank in the continental United States of America as the Registered Owner hereof shall request in writing to the Bond Registrar. -13- Reference is hereby made to the further provisions of this Bond set forth on the reverse hereof and such further provisions shall for all purposes have the same effect as if set forth at this place. It is hereby certified and recited that all conditions, acts and things required by law to exist or to be done precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond did exist, have happened, been done and performed in regular and due form and time as required by law; that the indebtedness of the City, including the issue of Bonds of which this is one, does not exceed any limitation imposed by law; and that provision has been made for the collection of a direct annual tax sufficient to pay the interest hereon as it falls due and also to pay and discharge the principal hereof at maturity. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose until the certificate of authentication hereon shall have been signed by the Bond Registrar. In Witness Whereof, the City of Chicago by the City Council has caused its corporate seal to be imprinted by facsimile hereon and this Bond to be signed by the duly authorized facsimile signature of the Mayor and attested by the facsimile signature of the City Clerk, all as of the Dated Date identified above. (Facsimile Signature) Mayor City of Chicago Attest: (Facsimile Signature) City Clerk City of Chicago [SEAL] Date of Authentication: Certificate of Authentication This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the within-mentioned Bond Ordinance and is one of the General Obligation Bonds, Series , of the City of Chicago. By: (Manual Signature) Authorized Officer -14- i I I I [Form of Bond โ Reverse Side] City of Chicago General Obligation Bond Series For the prompt payment of this Bond, both principal and interest, as aforesaid, as the same become due, and for the levy of taxes sufficient for that purpose, the full faith, credit and resources of the City are hereby irrevocably pledged. This Bond is one of a series of Bonds aggregating the principal amount of $ issued pursuant to the constitutional home rule powers of the City for the purposes of (i) paying costs of the Debt Management Purposes described in the hereinafter-defined Bond Ordinance and (ii) paying expenses incidental to the issuance of the Bonds, and was authorized by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City on 2015 (the "Bond Ordinance'). The Bonds maturing on or after January 1, , are redeemable prior to maturity at the option of the City, in whole or in part on any date on or after 1, , and if less than all of the outstanding Bonds are to be redeemed, the Bonds to be called shall be called from such maturities and interest rates as shall be determined by the City and if less than all of the Bonds of a single maturity and the same interest rate are to be redeemed then [by lot] [pro-rata] within such maturity and interest rate in the manner hereinafter provided, the Bonds to be redeemed at the redemption prices (being expressed as a percentage of the principal amount) set forth below, plus accrued interest to the date of redemption: Dates of Redemption Redemption Price The Bonds maturing on January 1, , are subject to mandatory redemption prior to maturity on January 1 of the years to , inclusive, and the Bonds maturing on January 1, , are subject to mandatory redemption prior to maturity on January 1 of the years to , inclusive, in each case at par and accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption. [Redemption by lot] In the event of the redemption of less than all the Bonds of like maturity and interest rate, the aggregate principal amount thereof to be redeemed shall be $ ,000 or an integral multiple thereof, and the Bond Registrar shall assign to each Bond of such maturity and interest rate a distinctive number for each $ ,000 principal amount of such Bond and shall select by lot from the numbers so assigned as many numbers as, at $ ,000 for each number, shall equal the principal amount of such Bonds to be redeemed. The Bonds to be redeemed shall be the Bonds to which were assigned numbers so selected; provided that only so much of the principal amount of each Bond shall be redeemed as shall equal $ ,000 for each number assigned to it and so selected. -15- [Redemption pro-rata] In the event of the redemption of less than all of the Bonds of like maturity and interest rate, the Bonds to be redeemed will be selected pro-rata in the manner determined pursuant to the Bond Ordinance. Notice of any such redemption shall be sent by first class mail not less than 30 days nor more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the Registered Owner of each Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books of the City maintained by the Bond Registrar or at such other address as is furnished in writing by such Registered Owner to the Bond Registrar; provided that the failure to mail any such notice or any defect therein as to any Bond shall not affect the validity of the proceedings for the redemption of any other Bond. When so called for redemption, this Bond shall cease to bear interest on the specified redemption date, provided that funds for redemption are on deposit at the place of payment at that time, and shall not be deemed to be outstanding. This Bond is transferable by the Registered Owner hereof in person or by its attorney duly authorized in writing at the designated corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar in Chicago, Illinois, but only in the manner, subject to the limitations and upon payment of the charges provided in the Bond Ordinance, and upon surrender and cancellation of this Bond. Upon such transfer a new Bond or Bonds of authorized denominations, of the same interest rate, series and maturity and for the same aggregate principal amount will be issued to the transferee in exchange therefor. The Bond Registrar shall not be required to transfer or exchange this Bond (A) after notice calling this Bond for redemption has been mailed, or (B) during a period of 15 days next preceding mailing of a notice of redemption of this Bond. The Bonds are issued in fully registered form in the denomination of $ ,000 each or authorized integral multiples thereof. This Bond may be exchanged at the designated corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of the same interest rate, series and maturity of other authorized denominations, upon the terms set forth in the Bond Ordinance. The City and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the Registered Owner hereof as the absolute owner hereof for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of principal hereof and interest due hereon and redemption premium, if any, and for all other purposes and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. -16- (ASSIGNMENT) For Value Received, the undersigned sells, assigns, and transfers unto (Name and Address of Assignee) the within Bond and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the said Bond on the books kept for registration thereof with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Signature guaranteed: Notice: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name of the Registered Owner as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever. -17- [Form of Capital Appreciation Bond Registered No. $ Compound Accreted Value at Maturity {"Maturity Amount') United States of America State of Illinois City of Chicago General Obligation Bond Series __ See Reverse Side for Additional Provisions Maturity , 20_ Yield to Maturity Original Principal Amount Per $ ,000 Maturity Amount: $ Dated Date 20 Registered Owner: The City of Chicago (the "City") hereby acknowledges itself to owe and for value received promises to pay to the Registered Owner identified above, or registered assigns as hereinafter provided, on the Maturity Date identified above, the Maturity Amount identified above. The amount of interest payable on this Bond on the Maturity Date hereof is the amount of interest accrued from the Dated Date hereof at a semiannual compounding rate necessary to produce the Yield to Maturity set forth above, compounded semiannually on each January 1 and July 1, commencing 1, 20 . The Maturity Amount of this Bond is payable in lawful money of the United States of America upon presentation and surrender of this Bond at the designated corporate trust office of , Chicago, Illinois, or its successor, as bond registrar and paying agent (the "Bond Registrar"). The Compound Accreted Value of this Bond per $ ,000 Maturity Amount on January 1 and July 1 of each year, commencing 1, 20 , determined by the semiannual compounding described in -18- this paragraph shall be as set forth in the Table of Compound Accreted Value Per $ ,000 of Compound Accreted Value at Maturity contained herein. Reference is hereby made to the further provisions of this Bond set forth on the reverse hereof and such further provisions shall for all purposes have the same effect as if set forth at this place. It is hereby certified and recited that all conditions, acts and things required by law to exist or to be done precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond did exist, have happened, been done and performed in regular and due form and time as required by law; that the indebtedness ofthe City, including the issue of Bonds of which this is one, does not exceed any limitation imposed by law; and that provision has been made for the collection of a direct annual tax sufficient to pay the Maturity Amount hereof at maturity. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose until the certificate of authentication hereon shall have been signed by the Bond Registrar. In Witness Whereof, the City of Chicago by the City Council has caused its corporate seal to be imprinted by facsimile hereon and this Bond to be signed by the duly authorized facsimile signature of the Mayor and attested by the facsimile signature of the City Clerk, all as of the Dated Date identified above. (Facsimile Signature) Mayor City of Chicago Attest: (Facsimile Signature) City Clerk City of Chicago [SEAL] Date of Authentication: CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the within-mentioned Bond Ordinance and is one ofthe General Obligation Bonds, Series , of the City of Chicago. (Manual Signature) Authorized Officer -19- [Form of Capital Appreciation Bond โ Reverse Side] City of Chicago General Obligation Bond Series For the prompt payment of the Maturity Amount of this Bond as the same becomes due, and for the levy of taxes sufficient for that purpose, the full faith, credit and resources of the City are hereby irrevocably pledged. This Bond is one of a series of Bonds aggregating the original principal amount of $ issued pursuant to the constitutional home rule powers of the City for the purposes of (i) paying costs of the Debt Management Purposes described in the hereinafter-defined Bond Ordinance and (ii) paying expenses incidental to the issuance of the Bonds, and was authorized by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City on 2015 (the "Bond Ordinance'). The Bonds maturing on or after January 1, , are redeemable prior to maturity at the option of the City, in whole or in part on any date on or after 1, , and if less than all of the outstanding Bonds are to be redeemed, the Bonds to be called shall be called from such maturities as shall be determined by the City, and if less than all of the Bonds of the same maturity and yield to maturity are to be redeemed, then [by lot] [pro-rata] for the Bonds of the same maturity and yield to maturity in the manner hereinafter provided, the Bonds to be redeemed at the redemption prices (being expressed as a percentage of the Compound Accreted Value of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below: Dates of Redemption Redemption Price [Redemption by lot] In the event of the redemption of less than all the Bonds of like maturity and yield to maturity, the aggregate Maturity Amount thereof to be redeemed shall be $ ,000 or an integral multiple thereof, and the Bond Registrar shall assign to each Bond of such maturity and yield to maturity a distinctive number for each $ ,000 Maturity Amount of such Bond and shall select by lot from the numbers so assigned as many numbers as, at $ ,000 for each number, shall equal the Maturity Amount of such Bonds to be redeemed. The Bonds to be redeemed shall be the Bonds to which were assigned numbers so selected; provided that only so much of the Maturity Amount of each Bond shall be redeemed as shall equal $ ,000 for each number assigned to it and so selected. [Redemption pro-rata] In the event of the redemption of less than all the Bonds of like maturity and yield to maturity, the Bonds to be redeemed will be selected pro-rata in the manner determined pursuant to the Bond Ordinance. Notice of any such redemption shall be sent by first class mail not fewer than 30 days nor more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the Registered Owner of each -20- Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books of the City maintained by the Bond Registrar or at such other address as is furnished in writing by such Registered Owner to the Bond Registrar; provided that the failure to mail any such notice or any defect therein as to any Bond shall not affect the validity of the proceedings for the redemption of any other Bond. When so called for redemption, this Bond shall cease to accrue interest on the specified redemption date; provided that funds for redemption are on deposit at the place of payment at that time, and shall not be deemed to be outstanding. This Bond is transferable by the Registered Owner hereof in person or by its attorney duly authorized in writing at the designated corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar in Chicago, Illinois, but only in the manner, subject to the limitations and upon payment of the charges provided in the Bond Ordinance, and upon surrender and cancellation of this Bond. Upon such transfer a new Bond or Bonds of authorized denominations, of the same maturity and yield to maturity and for the same aggregate Original Principal Amount will be issued to the transferee in exchange therefor. The Bond Registrar shall not be required to transfer or exchange this Bond (A) after notice calling this Bond for redemption has been mailed, or (B) during a period of 15 days next preceding mailing of a notice of redemption of this Bond. The Bonds are issued in fully registered form in Original Principal Amounts representing $ ,000 Maturity Amount or any integral multiple thereof. This Bond may be exchanged at the designated corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar for a like aggregate Original Principal Amount of Bonds of the same series and maturity, upon the terms set forth in the Bond Ordinance. The City and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the Registered Owner hereof as the absolute owner hereof for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of the Maturity Amount hereof and redemption premium, if any, hereon and for all other purposes and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. Table of Compound Accreted Value Per $ ,000 of Compound Accreted Value At Maturity * * * -21- (Assignment) For Value Received, the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers unto (Name and Address of Assignee) the within Bond and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the said Bond on the books kept for registration thereof with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Signature guaranteed: Notice: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name of the Registered Owner as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever. Section 6. Each Bond shall be a direct and general obligation of the City for the payment of which (as to Compound Accreted Value, principal, interest and redemption premium, if any, as appropriate) the City pledges its full faith and credit. Each Bond shall be payable (as to Compound Accreted Value, principal, interest and redemption premium, if any, as appropriate) from any moneys, revenues, receipts, income, assets or funds ofthe City legally available for such purpose, including but not limited to the proceeds of the Pledged Taxes (as defined in Section 7 hereof). Section 7. For the purpose of providing the funds required to pay as the same become due (i) the principal of and interest and redemption premium, if any, on the Bonds(including the Compound Accreted Value of any Capital Appreciation Bonds) and (ii) to the extent determined by an Authorized Officer to be necessary or desirable, (A) any Financing Reimbursement Agreement and/or related Financing Note (each as defined in Section 19 hereof); and (B) periodic fees and expenses payable to parties involved in the provision of ongoing services relating to the Bonds, the general obligation and revenue bond indebtedness of the City outstanding from time to time, and parties such as those identified by an Authorized Officer in a notification of sale as described in Section 12 hereof and parties providing similar ongoing services, such as rating agencies and entities providing financial market information to be used in connection with the structuring and sale of the Bonds (the "Ongoing Financing Services'), there is hereby levied and there shall be collected a direct annual tax upon all taxable property in the City for the years and in the amounts as follows: -22- Year Amount Year $250,000,000 2036 250,000,000 2037 250,000,000 2038 250,000,000 2039 250,000,000 2040 250,000,000 2041 250,000,000 2042 250,000,000 2043 250,000,000 2044 250,000,000 2045 250,000,000 2046 250,000,000 2047 250,000,000 2048 250,000,000 2049 250,000,000 2050 250,000,000 2051 250,000,000 2052 250,000,000 2053 250,000,000 2054 250,000,000 2055 450,000,000 ; provided that collections of such levy for any year in an amount in excess of that necessary to make the payments described in clauses (i) and (ii), above (a) may be used for any lawful public purpose designated by the City Council or (b) may be reduced and abated by an Authorized Officer if such reduction is deemed desirable by an Authorized Officer in connection with the sale or sales of the Bonds, in each case as determined from time to time by an Authorized Officer as provided in Section 12 hereof. The tax levy made in this Section is not subject to the "Aggregate Levy" limitation contained in the Chicago Property Tax Limitation Ordinance contained in Chapter 3-92 of the Municipal Code of Chicago (the "Municipal Code"), and Section 3-92-020 of the Municipal Code is hereby superseded to exclude the tax levy herein from the definition of "Aggregate Levy" contained therein. The term "Pledged Taxes" means the taxes hereinabove levied for collection for the purpose of providing the funds necessary to make the payments described in clauses (i) and (ii) of the first paragraph of this Section 7, and the term "Pledged Taxes" shall also include any amounts deposited into the hereinafter-defined Bond Fund or deposited with the Ad Valorem Tax Escrow Agent (as defined in Section 9 hereof) by an Authorized Officer for the purpose of paying principal of and interest on the Bonds and any accrued interest received and deposited -23- in the Bond Fund or the Ad Valorem Tax Escrow Account, if established pursuant to Section 9 hereof. As provided in Section 12 or otherwise, the City reserves the right to abate all or a portion of the Pledged Taxes required to be levied in any year if and to the extent on or before March 31 of the next succeeding calendar year (or such earlier date as may be required by law), the City has on hand amounts dedicated to the payments described in clause (i) of the first paragraph of this Section 7 due during the one-year period commencing on January 2 of such succeeding calendar year. The City may, but shall not be required to, cause the extension and collection of the Pledged Taxes for the payment when due of any Line of Credit Indebtedness or the principal of and interest on General Obligation Commercial Paper Notes or cause the levy or extension in any year of taxes for the payment of any amount described in clause (ii) of the first paragraph of this Section 7. Section 8. The City shall appropriate or otherwise provide amounts sufficient to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds (including the Compound Accreted Value of any Capital Appreciation Bonds) for the years such amounts are due, and the City hereby covenants to take timely action as required by law to carry out the provisions of this Section, but, if for any such year it fails to do so, this Ordinance shall constitute a continuing appropriation ordinance of such amounts without any further action on the part of the City Council. Section 9. Each' Authorized Officer is authorized to establish one or more special accounts, if determined to be necessary in connection with the sale of any of the Bonds, separate and segregated from all other funds and accounts of the City (each a "Bond Fund'), which shall either be (i) held by an Authorized Officer, (ii) maintained by the Trustee pursuant to a Trust Indenture or (iii) maintained with a bank or trust company to be designated by an Authorized Officer (each an "Ad Valorem Tax Escrow Account') pursuant to an escrow agreement (each an "Ad Valorem Tax Escrow Agreement'), between the City and the applicable Escrow Agent named therein (each an "Ad Valorem Tax Escrow Agent'), and one or more of the Mayor or an Authorized Officer are hereby authorized to execute and deliver one or more Ad Valorem Tax Escrow Agreements in connection with the sale of the Bonds in such form as the officers so executing such agreement may deem appropriate in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. In lieu of the proceeds of such taxes being deposited with the City Treasurer, each Authorized Officer is authorized to direct the County Collectors of Cook and DuPage Counties, Illinois (the "County Collectors') to deposit the proceeds of such taxes directly into the Bond Fund held pursuant to the applicable Trust Indenture or the applicable Ad Valorem Tax Escrow Account, if such Trust Indenture has been executed and delivered or such Ad Valorem Tax Escrow Account has been created. Section 10. If the Pledged Taxes to be applied to the payment of the Bonds are not available in time to make any payments of principal of or interest on the Bonds when due, then the appropriate fiscal officers of the City are hereby directed to make such payments from any other moneys, revenues, receipts, income, assets or funds of the City that are legally available for that purpose in advancement of the collection of such Pledged Taxes, and when the -24- proceeds thereof are received, such other funds shall be replenished, all to the end that the credit of the City may be preserved by the prompt payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds as the same become due. Section 11. A copy of this Ordinance, duly certified by the City Clerk, shall be filed in the respective offices of the County Clerks of Cook and DuPage Counties, Illinois (the "County Clerks"), and such filing shall constitute the authority for and it shall be the duty of the County Clerks, in each year beginning in 2016, to and including 2056, to extend the taxes levied pursuant to Section 7 hereof for collection in such year, such taxes to be in addition to and in excess of all other taxes heretofore or hereafter authorized to be levied by the City on its behalf. A copy of this Ordinance, duly certified by the City Clerk, shall also be filed with the Trustee, if any, each applicable Ad Valorem Tax Escrow Agent, if any, each applicable Bond Registrar, and if the County Collectors are authorized to deposit the proceeds of the taxes levied pursuant to Section 7 hereof directly with the Trustee or an Ad Valorem Tax Escrow Agent pursuant to Section 9 hereof, with the County Collectors. Section 12. Each Authorized Officer is hereby authorized to sell all or any portion of the Bonds, other than the Direct Purchase Bonds which shall be sold as provided in the following paragraph, from time to time to or at the direction of an underwriter or group of underwriters to be selected by such Authorized Officer (the "Underwriters'), with the concurrence of the Chairman of the Committee on Finance of the City Council, on such terms as such Authorized Officer may deem to be in the best interests of the City within the limitations set forth in this Ordinance. The Bonds may be sold as Direct Purchase Bonds in a manner and containing such terms authorized by an Authorized Officer, including pursuant to a placement agent arrangement, to a purchaser or purchasers other than the Underwriters (the "Direct Purchasers'), such Direct Purchasers to be selected by an Authorized Officer and such sale being permitted at a price of not less than 85 percent of the principal amount of the Direct Purchase Bonds being sold. The Mayor or an Authorized Officer is hereby authorized to do all such things and to execute and deliver such additional documents, agreements and certificates as shall be necessary in connection with the sale of Direct Purchase Bonds. The principal amount of and the interest on the Bonds (including the Compound Accreted Value of any Capital Appreciation Bonds) sold of each series and maturity in the aggregate (after taking into account (i) interest on the Bonds of such series to be paid from proceeds thereof and (ii) mandatory redemptions) shall not exceed the amount levied therefor as specified in Section 7 hereof. The Bonds may be sold from time to time as an Authorized Officer shall determine that the proceeds of such sales are needed. Either Authorized Officer is hereby authorized and directed to cause all necessary notices of redemption of the Outstanding Line and CP Indebtedness selected for refunding as provided above to be given in accordance with the terms of the respective ordinances, indentures or agreements, as applicable, authorizing the Outstanding Line and CP Indebtedness. -25- The Mayor or an Authorized Officer is hereby authorized to execute and deliver a contract of purchase with respect to each sale of the Bonds (i) to, or at the direction of, the Underwriters or (ii) to the Direct Purchasers, in substantially the form previously used for similar general obligation bonds of the City (the "Contract of Purchase'), with appropriate revisions to reflect the terms and provisions of the Bonds and such other revisions in text as the Mayor or an Authorized Officer shall determine are necessary or desirable in connection with the sale of the Bonds. Bonds sold pursuant to a Contract of Purchase shall be sold at a price of not less than 85 percent of the principal amount of the Bonds being sold and the compensation paid to the Underwriters in connection with any such sale of Bonds shall not exceed five percent of the principal amount of the Bonds being sold. Nothing contained in this Ordinance shall limit the sale of the Bonds or any maturity or maturities thereof at a price or prices in excess of the principal amount thereof. In connection with any sale of the Bonds, an Authorized Officer is hereby authorized to obtain one or more policies of bond insurance from recognized bond insurers selected by an Authorized Officer, if such Authorized Officer determines such bond insurance to be desirable in connection with such sale of the Bonds. Either Authorized Officer may, on behalf of the City, make covenants with such bond insurer that are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance and are necessary to carry out the purposes of this Ordinance. In the event that Bonds are sold so as to require the levy of taxes for any year specified in Section 7 hereof for the purpose of making the payments described in clause (i) of the first paragraph of Section 7 hereof in an amount less than the amount specified for such year in the first paragraph of Section 7 hereof, then an Authorized Officer shall, on or prior to March 31 (or such earlier date as may be required by law) of the calendar year next succeeding such year, notify the City Council of the determination made pursuant to clauses (a) and (b) of the first paragraph of Section 7 hereof regarding the application of any resulting excess levy collections, and, in addition, in connection with a determination made pursuant to clause (b) of the first paragraph of Section 7 hereof, an Authorized Officer shall file in the respective offices of the County Clerks certificates of tax abatement for such year. In the event that upon the final sale of the Bonds of all series, such Bonds have been sold so as to require the levy of taxes in any year specified in Section 7 hereof for the purpose of making the payments described in clause (i) of the first paragraph of Section 7 hereof in an amount less than the amount specified for such year in Section 7 hereof, then there shall be included, in the final notification of sale to the City Council described below in this Section 12, the determination made pursuant to clauses (a) and (b) of the'first paragraph of Section 7 hereof regarding the application of any resulting excess levy collections for such year and any succeeding year and, in addition, in connection with a determination made pursuant to clause (b) of the first paragraph of Section 7 hereof, an Authorized Officer shall file in the respective offices of the County Clerks certificates of tax abatement for such year or years. If any of the Bonds are not to be sold and issued as provided herein and no levy collections are to be applied for the purposes of making the payments described in clause (ii) of Section 7 hereof as determined by an Authorized Officer, the corresponding taxes herein levied to pay debt service thereon shall be abated in full. Any certificate of abatement delivered pursuant to this paragraph shall refer to the amount of taxes levied pursuant to Section 7 hereof, shall indicate the amount of reduction in the amount of taxes levied by the City resulting from the sale or sales of the Bonds or the non-issuance -26- thereof, which reduced amount is to be abated from such taxes, and shall further indicate the remainder of such taxes which is to be extended for collection by the County Clerks. The preparation, use and distribution of a preliminary official statement, an official statement, a private placement memorandum or any other disclosure document relating to each sale and issuance of the Bonds are hereby ratified and approved. The Mayor and each Authorized Officer are each hereby authorized to execute and deliver an official statement or other disclosure document relating to each sale and issuance of the Bonds on behalf of the City. The preliminary official statement, official statement, private placement memorandum and other disclosure documents herein authorized shall be substantially similar to those previously used for general obligation bonds of the City, and shall contain the terms and provisions of, and security for, the Bonds, the use of proceeds of the Bonds, financial information for the City, and such other information as the Mayor or any Authorized Officer determines to be advisable under the circumstances. Subsequent to the sale of any series of Bonds, an Authorized Officer shall file in the office of the City Clerk a notification of sale directed to the City Council setting forth (i) the series designation, the aggregate principal amount and authorized denominations of, maturity schedule and redemption provisions for the Bonds sold, (ii) the principal amounts of the Bonds sold as Current Interest Bonds, Capital Appreciation Bonds and Convertible Bonds, respectively, (iii) in the case of the sale of the Direct Purchase Bonds, the principal amounts of such Bonds sold as Current Interest Bonds, Capital Appreciation Bonds and Convertible Bonds, respectively, (iv) in the case of Bonds sold as Capital Appreciation Bonds, (A) the Original Principal Amounts of and Yields to Maturity on the Capital Appreciation Bonds being sold and (B) a table of Compound Accreted Values per minimum authorized Compound Accreted Value at maturity for any Capital Appreciation Bonds being sold, setting forth the Compound Accreted Value of each such Capital Appreciation Bond on each semiannual compounding date, (v) the interest rates on the Current Interest Bonds sold, (vi) an identification of the Outstanding Line and CP Indebtedness to be paid or refunded with proceeds of such Bonds and the date on and price at which the Outstanding Line and CP Indebtedness so identified shall be paid or refunded, (vii) an identification of any funds of the City to which reimbursement is made with proceeds of such Bonds and the amounts of any such reimbursements, (viii) a description of any Financing Transaction Undertaking to be financed with proceeds of such Bonds, (ix) the identity of the insurer or insurers issuing the insurance policy or policies, if any, referred to below, for such Bonds, (x) the identity of the Underwriters (or, in the case of Direct Purchase Bonds, the Direct Purchasers) selected for such Bonds, (xi) the identity of the applicable Bond Registrar and Trustee, if any, selected by an Authorized Officer for such Bonds, (xii)the compensation paid to the Underwriters in connection with such sale, (xiii) the identity of any Refunding Escrow Agent (as defined in subparagraph (ii) of Section 13 hereof) appointed by an Authorized Officer in connection with the refunding of Outstanding Line and CP Indebtedness and (xiv) any other matter authorized by this Ordinance to be determined by an Authorized Officer at the time of the sale of the Bonds of each series. In connection with any sale of the Bonds, an Authorized Officer is hereby authorized to execute and deliver one or more Continuing Disclosure Undertakings (each a "Continuing Disclosure Undertaking') evidencing the City's agreement to comply with the requirements of -27- Section (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12, adopted by the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in a form approved by the Corporation Counsel. Upon its execution and delivery on behalf of the City as herein provided, each Continuing Disclosure Undertaking will be binding on the City, and the officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to do all such acts and things and to execute all such documents as may be necessary to carry out and comply with the provisions of each Continuing Disclosure Undertaking as executed. Either Authorized Officer is hereby further authorized to amend each Continuing Disclosure Undertaking in accordance with its respective terms from time to time following its execution and delivery as said officer shall deem necessary. In addition, an Authorized Officer is authorized to make all future filings with the Electronic Municipal Market Access system operated by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board or such other municipal securities information repository as shall be designated by the SEC, all in accordance with the provisions of SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Ordinance, the sole remedies for any failure by the City to comply with any Continuing Disclosure Undertaking shall be the ability of the beneficial owner of any applicable Bond to seek mandamus or specific performance by court order to cause the City to comply with its obligations under such Continuing Disclosure Undertaking. The Bonds shall be duly prepared and executed in the form and manner provided herein and delivered to the purchasers in accordance with the applicable terms of sale. The Mayor, each Authorized Officer, the City Treasurer and the City Clerk are each hereby authorized to execute and deliver such other documents and agreements and perform such other acts prior to or following the issuance of the Bonds as may be necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance of the Bonds and any transactions contemplated herein related to the application of the proceeds of the Bonds or collections or application of taxes levied for the payment of the Bonds or other purposes hereunder, but subject to any limitations on or restrictions of such power or authority as herein set forth, and any such actions heretofore taken by the Mayor, an Authorized Officer, the City Treasurer or the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions hereof are hereby ratified and approved. Section 13. The proceeds from the sale of any series of the Bonds shall be used as follows: The sum representing the accrued interest received, if any, shall be used to pay the first interest becoming due on the Bonds sold, and to that end, shall be deposited in the applicable Bond Fund or the applicable Ad Valorem Tax Escrow Account, if established. From the sale proceeds derived from any such sale of a series of the Bonds, (A) the sum determined by an Authorized Officer to capitalize or fund interest on such Bonds shall be deposited into the applicable Bond Fund established for such Bonds; (B) the sum determined by an Authorized Officer to be sufficient to pay the Outstanding Line and CR Indebtedness being paid or refunded at or prior to their respective maturities, at a price of par, any applicable redemption premium and accrued interest thereon up to and including the dates of such payment or redemption shall be -28- paid directly to the party to whom owed, deposited into the respective debt service funds, if any, established for the Outstanding Line and CP Indebtedness being paid or refunded or into one or more "Refunded Bonds Escrow Accounts" to be held by one or more banks or trust companies to be designated by an Authorized Officer (each a "Refunding Escrow Agent'), each pursuant to the terms of an escrow agreement (each a "Refunding Escrow Agreement'), and the Mayor, an Authorized Officer and the City Clerk, or any of them, are hereby authorized to execute and deliver each Refunding Escrow Agreement, and any amendment thereto, in such form as the officer so executing shall deem appropriate to effect the payment or redemption of the Outstanding Line and CP Indebtedness described in this paragraph; (C) the sum determined by an Authorized Officer to be necessary to accomplish the Financing Transaction Undertakings described in the notification of sale delivered pursuant to Section 12 hereof shall be applied as determined by such Authorized Officer pursuant to the documentation related to the Financing Transaction that is the subject of such Financing Transaction Undertaking; and (D) the sum determined by an Authorized Officer to be sufficient to reimburse one or more funds of the City for any amounts expended for the Debt Management Purposes, including an amount not to exceed $31,000,000 in reimbursement of payments made in connection with the Sales Tax Swap Termination (including fees and expenses related thereto), shall be deposited into the fund ofthe City from which such expenditure was made. Notwithstanding any provision of the Municipal Code, investments acquired with proceeds of the Bonds or investment income thereon may mature beyond ten years from the date of acquisition, and may include but are not limited to agreements entered into between the City and providers of securities under which agreements such providers agree to purchase from or sell to the City specified securities on specific dates at predetermined prices, all as established at the time of execution of any such agreement and as set forth in such agreement, and guaranteed investment contracts, forward purchase agreements and other similar investment vehicles. Such guaranteed investment contracts, forward purchase agreements and other similar investment vehicles may, to the extent permitted by operative authorizing documents and by applicable law, be assigned or transferred from one bond transaction to another or apply to the proceeds of more than one bond transaction on a commingled or non-commingled basis, as determined by an Authorized Officer. The Mayor or an Authorized Officer is hereby authorized to enter into any amendments to or restatements of existing documents or to execute new documents, to consent to actions being taken by others or to obtain the consent of other parties, as may be necessary or desirable in this respect. Investment income derived from Bond proceeds may be (1) expended for the same purposes for which Bond proceeds may be expended, (2) used for the payment or prepayment of City debt obligations, (3) deposited in the Corporate Fund of the City or (4) rebated to the United States of America as provided in Section 14 hereof, all as determined by an Authorized Officer or the Budget Director. Any commingled investment income from guaranteed investment contracts, forward purchase agreements and other similar investment vehicles shall be apportioned among bond transactions as determined by an Authorized Officer or as otherwise required by operative authorizing documents and applicable law. -29- (iii) From the sale proceeds of a series of the Bonds not applied as provided in paragraphs (i) and (ii), above, the amount deemed necessary by an Authorized Officer shall be applied to the payment of the costs of issuance of such Bonds, including the premium or fee for bond insurance, if any, and any unexpended portion of the sale proceeds shall be paid to the City. Section 14. The City covenants that it will take no action in the investment of the proceeds of the Bonds (other than Bonds issued as bonds the interest on which is not excludable from the gross income of the owner thereof for federal income tax purposes) which would result in making the interest payable on any of such Bonds subject to federal income taxes by reason of such Bonds being classified as "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 ofthe Code. The City further covenants that it will act with respect to the proceeds of Bonds (other than Bonds issued as bonds the interest on which is not excludable from the gross income of the owner thereof for federal income tax purposes), the earnings on the proceeds of such Bonds and any other moneys on deposit in any fund or account maintained in respect of such Bonds, including, if necessary, a rebate of such earnings to the United States of America, in a manner which would cause the interest on such Bonds to continue to be exempt from federal income taxation under Section 103(a) ofthe Code. Each Authorized Officer is hereby authorized to execute such certifications, tax returns, covenants and agreements as shall be necessary, in the opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel, or in the best interest of the City, as determined by an Authorized Officer, to evidence the City's compliance with the covenants contained in this section. Section 15. This Ordinance is prepared in accordance with the powers of the City as a home rule unit under Article VII of the 1970 Illinois Constitution. The appropriate officers of the City are hereby authorized to take such actions and do such things as shall be necessary to perform, carry out, give effect to and consummate the transactions contemplated by this Ordinance and the Bonds, including, but not limited to, the exercise following the delivery date of any of the Bonds of any power or authority delegated to such official of the City under this Ordinance with respect to the Bonds upon the initial issuance thereof, but subject to any. limitations on or restrictions of such power or authority as herein set forth, and any actions heretofore taken by such officers of the City in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby ratified and approved. Section 16. The Mayor and each Authorized Officer may each designate another to act as their respective proxy and, as applicable, to affix their respective signatures to the Bonds whether in temporary or definitive form, and any other instrument, certificate or document required to be signed by the Mayor or an Authorized Officer pursuant to this Ordinance and any instrument, certificate or document required thereby. In such case, each shall send to the City Council written notice, of the person so designated by each, such notice stating the name of the person so selected and identifying the instruments, certificates and documents which such person shall be authorized to sign as proxy for the Mayor and each Authorized Officer, respectively. A written signature of the Mayor or of an Authorized Officer, respectively, -30- executed by the person so designated underneath, shall be attached to each notice. Each notice, with the signatures attached, shall be recorded in the Journal of Proceedings of the City Council for such date and filed in the office of the City Clerk. When the signature of the Mayor is placed on an instrument, certificate or document at the direction of the Mayor in the specified manner, the same, in all respects, shall be as binding on the City as if signed by the Mayor in person. When the signature of an Authorized Officer is so affixed to an instrument, certificate or document at the direction of such Authorized Officer, the same, in all respects, shall be as binding on the City as if signed by such Authorized Officer in person. Section 17. If requested by the Bond Registrar, the Mayor, each Authorized Officer and the City Clerk are each authorized to execute the standard form of agreement between the City and the Bond Registrar with respect to the obligations and duties thereof. Section 18. If payment or provision for payment is made, to or for the registered owners of all or a portion of the Bonds, of the principal of and interest due and to become due on any Current Interest Bond and of the Compound Accreted Value of any Capital Appreciation Bond at the times and in the manner stipulated therein, and there is paid or caused to be paid to the applicable Bond Registrar, the applicable Trustee, the applicable Ad Valorem Tax Escrow Agent as provided in Section 9 hereof or such bank or trust company as shall be designated by an Authorized Officer (such bank or trust company hereinafter referred to as a "Defeasance Escrow Agent'), all sums of money due and to become due according to the provisions hereof, then these presents and the estate and rights hereby granted shall cease, terminate and be void as to those Bonds or portions thereof except for purposes of registration, transfer and exchange of Bonds and any such payment from such moneys or obligations. Any Bond shall be deemed to be paid within the meaning of this section when payment of the principal of any such Current Interest Bond, plus interest thereon to the due date thereof or the Compound Accreted Value of any such Capital Appreciation Bond (whether such due date be by reason of maturity or upon redemption as provided in this Ordinance or otherwise), either (a) shall have been made or caused to have been made in accordance with the terms thereof, or (b) shall have been provided for by irrevocably depositing with the applicable Bond Registrar, the applicable Trustee, the applicable Ad Valorem Tax Escrow Agent as provided in Section 9 hereof or a Defeasance Escrow Agent, in trust and exclusively for such payment, (1) moneys sufficient to make such payment or (2)(A) direct obligations of the United States of America; (B) obligations of agencies of the United States of America, the timely payment of principal of and interest on which are guaranteed by the United States of America; (C) obligations ofthe following agencies: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (FHLMC) debt obligations, Farm Credit System (formerly: Federal Land Banks, Federal Intermediate Credit Banks, and Banks for Cooperatives) debt obligations, Federal Home Loan Banks (FHL Banks) debt obligations, Fannie Mae debt obligations, Financing Corp. (FICO) debt obligations, Resolution Funding Corp. (REFCORP) debt obligations, and U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. A.I.D.) Guaranteed notes; (D) pre-refunded municipal obligations defined as follows: any bonds or other obligations of any state of the United States of America or of any agency, instrumentality or local governmental unit of any such state which are not callable at the option of the obligor prior to maturity or as to which irrevocable instructions have been given by the obligor to call on the date specified in the notice; or (E) instruments evidencing an ownership interest in obligations described in the preceding clauses (A), (B) and (C), or (3) a combination of the investments -31- described in clauses (1) and (2) above, such amounts so deposited being available or maturing as to principal and interest in such amounts and at such times, without consideration of any reinvestment thereof, as will insure the availability of sufficient moneys to make such payment (all as confirmed by a nationally recognized firm of independent public accountants). At such times as a Bond shall be deemed to be paid hereunder, as aforesaid, it shall no longer be secured by or entitled to the benefits of this Ordinance, except for the purposes of registration, transfer and exchange of Bonds and any such payment from such moneys or obligations. The defeasance of the Bonds under this Ordinance shall also be subject to any additional terms and conditions contained in the applicable Trust Indenture. No such deposit under this section shall be made or accepted hereunder and no use made of any such deposit unless, in the case of Bonds other than Bonds issued as bonds the interest on which is not excludable from the gross income of the owner thereof for federal income tax purposes, the applicable Bond Registrar, the applicable Trustee, the applicable Ad Valorem Tax Escrow Agent or the applicable Defeasance Escrow Agent, as the case may be, shall have received an opinion of nationally recognized municipal bond counsel to the effect that such deposit and use would not cause any of such Bonds to be treated as "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 ofthe Code or any successor provision thereto. Nothing in this Ordinance shall prohibit a defeasance deposit of escrow securities as provided in this section or a defeasance deposit with respect to the Bonds or the Outstanding Line and CP Indebtedness pursuant to any Refunding Escrow Agreement authorized by subparagraph (ii) of Section 13 hereof, from being subject to a subsequent sale of such escrow securities and reinvestment of all or a portion of the proceeds of that sale in escrow securities which, together with money to remain so held in trust, shall be sufficient to provide for payment of principal, redemption premium, if any, and interest on any of the defeased Bonds or Outstanding Line and CP Indebtedness, as appropriate. Amounts held by the applicable Bond Registrar, the applicable Trustee, the applicable Ad Valorem Tax Escrow Agent, any Defeasance Escrow Agent or any Refunding Escrow Agent in excess of the amounts needed so to provide for payment of the defeased Bonds or Outstanding Line and CP Indebtedness, as appropriate, may be subject to withdrawal by the City. The Mayor or an Authorized Officer is hereby authorized to execute and deliver from time to time one or more agreements (and amendments thereto) with counterparties selected by an Authorized Officer, with respect to the investment and use of such excess amounts held by the applicable Bond Registrar, the applicable Trustee, the applicable Ad Valorem Tax Escrow Agent, a Defeasance Escrow Agent or a Refunding Escrow Agent. Section 19. To provide increased financial flexibility and protection to the City in connection with the Financing Transaction, the Mayor and each Authorized Officer are each hereby authorized to obtain one or more letters of credit, lines of credit, loan payment undertaking agreements or other forms of financial security or credit enhancement to secure payment of amounts due from the City in connection with the Financing Transaction, including payment of any termination amount or purchase option price (each such document, instrument or form of financial security or credit enhancement being hereinafter referred to as a "Financing Credit Facility') with one or more financial institutions. The Mayor and each Authorized Officer are each hereby authorized to enter into one or more reimbursement agreements (each, a -32- "Financing Reimbursement Agreement) and to' execute and issue one or more promissory notes (each a "Financing Note") in connection with such Financing Credit Facilities. Any Financing Credit Facility, Financing Reimbursement Agreement or Financing Note shall be in substantially the form of the credit facilities, reimbursement agreements and promissory notes, respectively, previously entered into by the City in connection with the Financing Transaction, existing lines of credit secured by the City or the sale of general obligation bonds or notes by the City, but with such revisions in text as the Mayor or an Authorized Officer executing the same shall determine are necessary or desirable, the execution thereof by the Mayor or an Authorized Officer to evidence the City Council's approval of all such revisions. The annual fee paid to any financial institution that provides a Financing Credit Facility shall not exceed ten percent of the principal amount of the Financing Credit Facility outstanding during such annual period. The final form of any Financing Credit Facility, Financing Reimbursement Agreement or Financing Note entered into by the City pursuant to this paragraph shall be filed in the office of the City Clerk. The payment obligation of the City (each, a "Financing Payment Obligation") in connection with any Financing Credit Facility, Financing Reimbursement Agreement or Financing Note shall be a general obligation of the City for the payment of which, both principal and interest, the City pledges its full faith, credit and resources. Each such Financing Payment Obligation shall bear interest at a rate not exceeding 18 percent per annum and shall mature not later than the fortieth anniversary of the final date of payment by the City under the Financing Transaction (including the payment of any termination amount or purchase option price). The Mayor and each Authorized Officer are each hereby authorized to execute and deliver any such Financing Credit Facility, Financing Reimbursement Agreement or Financing Note, and any amendment thereto or replacement thereof, under the seal of the City affixed and attested by the City Clerk. In connection with the Financing Transaction, the Mayor and each Authorized Officer are each hereby authorized to retain one or more financial institutions to act as paying agent on behalf of the City. The City shall appropriate or otherwise provide amounts sufficient to pay when due all Financing Payment Obligations, and the City hereby covenants to take timely action as required by law to carry out the provisions of this paragraph, but, if for any such year it fails to do so, this Ordinance shall constitute a continuing appropriation ordinance of such amounts without any further action on the part of the City Council. In addition, in connection with the Financing Transaction, the Mayor, the City Treasurer and each Authorized Officer are each hereby authorized to (i) cause the deposit of cash or investment securities currently owned by or to be acquired by the City (including (A) cash proceeds constituting, or investment securities that may be acquired with, proceeds of the Bonds and (B) investment securities acquired with proceeds of the Financing Transaction) to secure payment of any and all amounts payable by the City in connection with the Financing Transaction, including without limitation the payment of any termination amount or purchase option price and (ii) provide for the termination of the Financing Transaction, whether by exercise of a purchase price option provided in connection with the Financing Transaction or otherwise, make all payments necessary in connection with such termination (including through the use or sale of investment securities acquired with proceeds of the Financing Transaction), and repurchase the assets that are the subject of the Financing Transaction (the actions described in clauses (i) and (ii) above, together with those described in the preceding paragraph are collectively referred to as the "Financing Transaction Undertakings'). The Mayor, the City Treasurer and each Authorized Officer are each hereby authorized to execute and deliver any -33- agreements, assignments, releases or other documents necessary to effectuate the Financing Transaction Undertakings described in clause (i) and (ii) of the preceding sentence in such forms as are approved by the Corporation Counsel, under the seal of the City, where necessary, affixed and attested by the City Clerk, and to perform such other acts prior to or following the issuance of the Bonds as may be necessary or desirable in connection with any transactions contemplated herein related to the accomplishment of the desired Financing Transaction Undertakings, but subject to any limitations on or restrictions of such power or authority as herein set forth, and any such actions heretofore taken by the Mayor, the City Treasurer or an Authorized Officer in accordance with the provisions hereof are hereby ratified and approved. Section 20. The maximum principal amount of the Obligations expected to be issued for the Reimbursement Costs is $300,000,000. Section 21. Section 2-32-031 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended by inserting the language underscored, as follows: 2-32-031 Debt Management Policies; retention of rebate calculation agents, financial advisors, dissemination agents and qualified independent representatives. (Omitted text is not affected by this Ordinance) (e) The chief financial officer shall have authority to retain, in connection with debt obligations issued by the City, such dissemination agents to assist with continuing disclosure reguirements under continuing disclosure agreements entered into by the City in connection with City debt obligations as deemed necessary or desirable in order to ensure ongoing compliance with Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission and any successor or similar disclosure reguirements of the federal or state government. Section 22. To the extent that any ordinance, resolution, rule, order or provision of the Municipal Code, or part thereof, is in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance, the provisions of this Ordinance shall be controlling. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Ordinance shall be held invalid, the invalidity of such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the other provisions of this Ordinance. No provision of the Municipal Code or violation of any provision of the Municipal Code shall be deemed to render voidable at the option of the City any document, instrument or agreement authorized hereunder or to impair the validity of this Ordinance or the instruments authorized by this Ordinance or to impair the rights of the owners of the Bonds to receive payment of the principal of or interest on the Bonds or to impair the security for the Bonds; provided further that the foregoing shall not be deemed to affect the availability of any other remedy or penalty for any violation of any provision of the Municipal Code. Section 23. This Ordinance shall be published by the City Clerk, by causing to be printed in special pamphlet form at least five copies hereof, which copies are to be made -34- |1010|I I Exhibit A Reimbursement Costs Public right-of-way infrastructure improvements in City neighborhoods, including street and alley construction and improvements, lighting improvements, sidewalk improvements and replacement, and curb and gutter repairs and replacement. Infrastructure improvements to enhance the development of economic activity, including industrial street construction and improvements, streetscaping, median landscaping, demolition of hazardous, vacant or dilapidated buildings that pose a threat to public safety and welfare, shoreline reconstruction, riverbank stabilization, residential and commercial infrastructure redevelopment and railroad viaduct clearance improvements. Transportation improvements (to City facilities and to facilities located within the City limits which are owned by other governmental entities), including street resurfacing, bridge and freight tunnel rehabilitation, traffic signal modernization, new traffic signal installation, intersection safety improvements and transit facility improvements. Grants to assist not-for-profit organizations or educational or cultural institutions, or to assist other municipal corporations, units of local government, school districts or the State of Illinois. The acquisition of personal property, including, but not limited to, computer hardware and software, vehicles or other capital items useful or necessary for City purposes. The duly authorized acquisition of improved and unimproved real property within the City for municipal purposes, and the improvement, demolition and/or remediation of any such property. Constructing, equipping, altering and repairing various municipal facilities including fire stations, police stations, libraries, senior and health centers and other municipal facilities. Exhibit B Form of Trust Indenture City of Chicago to as Trustee Trust Indenture Securing City of Chicago General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015 Dated Table of Contents (This Table of Contents is not a part ofthe Indenture and is only for convenience of reference) Section Heading Page Article I. Definitions|910|Section 1.01. Definitions|910| Article II The Bonds 9 Section 2.01. Authority for and Issuance of Bonds 9 Section 2.02. General Terms of Bonds 9 Section 2.03. Execution 10 Section 2.04. Authentication 10 Section 2.05. Form of Bonds; Temporary Bonds 10 Section 2.06. Delivery of Bonds 11 Section 2.07. Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds 11 Section 2.08. Transfer and Exchange of Bonds; Persons Treated as Owners 12 Section 2.09. Required Information in Bond Form 12 Section 2.10. Cancellation 13 Section 2.11. Book Entry Provisions 13 Article III Redemption of Bonds 15 Section 3.01. Redemption Terms, Dates and Prices 15 Section 3.02. Notice of Redemption 17 Section 3.03. Selection of Bonds for Redemption 18 Section 3.04. Deposit of Funds... 19 Article IV Application of Bond Proceeds; Creation of Funds and Security for Bonds 19 Section 4.01. Source of Payment of Bonds 19 Section 4.02. Application of Bond Proceeds 19 Section 4.03. Creation of Accounts in Bond Fund 20 Section 4.04. City Reimbursement Account : 20 Section 4.05. Deposits into Bond Fund and Account Therein 20 Section 4.06. Tax Covenants -. 21 Section 4.07. Non-presentment of Bonds 21 Section 4.08. Moneys Held in Trust 21 Article V Investment of Moneys 21 Section 5.01. Investment of Moneys 21 Section 5.02. Investment Income 22 Article VI Discharge of Lien 22 Section 6.01. Defeasance 22 Article VII Default Provisions; Remedies 23 Section 7.01. Defaults 23 Section 7.02. Remedies 23 Article VIII Trustee and Paying Agent 24 Section 8.01. Acceptance of Trusts 24 Section 8.02. Dealing in Bonds 24 Section 8.03. Compensation of Trustee 25 Section 8.04. Paying Agent 25 Section 8.05. Notice to Rating Agencies 26 Section 8.06. Qualification of Trustee 26 Section 8.07. Responsibilities of Trustee 26 Section 8.08. Funds Held in Trust and Security Therefor 27 Section 8.09. Evidence on which Trustee May Act 28 Section 8.10. Permitted Acts and Functions 28 Section 8.11. Resignation 28 Section 8.12. Removal 28 Section 8.13. Appointment of Successor 29 Section 8.14. Transfer of Rights and Property to Successor 29 Section 8.15. Merger or Consolidation 30 Section 8.16. Adoption of Authentication 30 Section 8.17. Evidence of Signatures of Owners and Ownership of Bonds 30 Section 8.18. Preservation and Inspection of Documents .: 31 Article IX Supplemental Indenture 31 Section 9.01. Supplemental Indenture Effective Upon Execution by the Trustee 31 Section 9.02. Supplemental Indentures Effective With Consent of Owners of Bonds 32 Section 9.03. General Provisions 32 Section 9.04. Additional Matters 33 Section 9.05. Mailing of Notice of Amendment 33 Section 9.06. Powers of Amendment 33 Section 9.07. Consent of Owners of Bonds 33 Section 9.08. Modifications by Unanimous Consent 35 Section 9.09. Exclusion of Bonds 35 Section 9.10. Notation on Bonds 35 Article X. Miscellaneous 35 Section 10.01. Severability 35 Section 10.02. Payments Due on Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays 35 Section 10.03. Counterparts 36 Section 10.04. Rules of Interpretation 36 Section 10.05. Captions 36 Exhibit A โ Form of Bond A-1 -iii- Trust Indenture This Trust Indenture, made and entered into , 201_ (this "Indenture"), from the City of Chicago (the "City"), a municipal corporation and home rule unit of local government duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Illinois, to (the "Trustee"), a banking with trust powers, having a corporate trust office located in the City of Chicago, Illinois, duly organized, validly existing and authorized to accept and execute trusts of the character herein set out under and by virtue of the laws ofthe United States of America, WITNESSETH: Whereas, pursuant to an ordinance duly adopted by the City Council of the City (the "City Council") on , 2015 (the "Bond Ordinance") the City duly authorized the issuance and sale of its General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015_ (the "Bonds") in order to provide the funds, together with other available funds, including proceeds of other general obligation bonds, for the purpose of (i) [state Bond Ordinance authorized purposes for which Ihis series of Bonds is being issued] and (ii) paying the expenses of issuance ofthe Bonds; and Whereas, by virtue of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and pursuant to the Bond Ordinance, the City is authorized to issue the Bonds, enter into this Indenture and to do or cause to be done all the acts and things herein provided or required to be done; arid Whereas, the execution and delivery of the Bonds and of this Indenture have in all respects been duly authorized and all things necessary to make such Bonds, when executed by the City and authenticated by the Trustee, the legal, valid and binding obligations of the City and to make this Indenture a legal, valid and binding agreement, have been done; and Whereas, the Bonds, and the Trustee's Certificate of Authentication to be endorsed on such Bonds, shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, with necessary and appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as permitted or required by this Indenture and the Bond Ordinance; Now, Therefore, This Indenture Witnesseth: Granting Clauses That the City, in consideration of the premises and the acceptance by the Trustee of the trusts hereby created, and of the purchase and acceptance of the Bonds by the Registered Owners thereof, and of the sum of one dollar, lawful money of the United States of America, to it duly paid by the Trustee at or before the execution and delivery of these presents, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, to secure the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds according to their tenor and effect, and to secure the performance and observance by the City of all the covenants expressed or implied herein and in the Bonds, does hereby assign and grant a security -1- interest in and to the following to the Trustee, and its successors in trust and assigns forever, for the securing of the performance of the obligations of the City hereinafter set forth (the "Trust Estate "): Granting Clause First Any moneys, revenues, receipts, income, assets or funds of the City legally available for such purposes, all to the extent provided in this Indenture, including, but not limited to, the proceeds of a direct annual tax levied by the City in the Bond Ordinance upon all taxable property in the City; Granting Clause Second All moneys and securities from time to time held by the Trustee under the terms of this Indenture, except for moneys deposited with or paid to the Trustee and held in trust hereunder for the redemption of Bonds, notice ofthe redemption of which has been duly given; and Granting Clause Third Any and all other property, rights and interests of every kind and nature from time to time hereafter by delivery or by writing of any kind granted, bargained, sold, alienated, demised, released, conveyed, assigned, transferred, mortgaged, pledged, hypothecated or otherwise subjected hereto, as and for additional security hereunder by the City or by any other person on its behalf or with its written consent to the Trustee, and the Trustee is hereby authorized to receive any and all such property al any and all times and to hold and apply the same subject to the terms hereof; To Have and To Hold all and singular the Trust Estate, whether now owned or hereafter acquired, unto the Trustee and its successors in said trust and assigns forever; In Trust, Nevertheless, upon the terms and trusts herein set forth for the equal and proportionate benefit, security and protection of all present and future Registered Owners of the Bonds, without privilege, priority or distinction as to the lien or otherwise of any of the foregoing over any other of the foregoing, except to the extent herein otherwise specifically provided; Provided, However, that if the City, its successors or assigns shall well and truly pay, or cause to be paid, the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds, at the times and in the manner set forth therein according to the true intent and meaning thereof, and shall cause the payments to be made on the Bonds as required herein, or shall provide, as permitted hereby, for the payment thereof, and shall well and truly cause to be kept, performed and observed all of its covenants and conditions pursuant to the terms of this Indenture, and shall pay or cause to be paid to the Trustee all sums of money due or to become due to them in accordance with the terms and provisions hereof, then upon the final payment thereof this Indenture and the rights hereby granted shall cease, determine and be void; otherwise this Indenture shall remain in full force and effect. -2- This Indenture Further Witnesseth, and it is expressly declared, that all Bonds reissued and secured hereunder are to be reissued, authenticated and delivered, and all said property, rights and interests and any other amounts hereby assigned and pledged are to be dealt with and disposed of. under, upon and subject to the terms, conditions, stipulations, covenants, agreements, trusts, uses and purposes as herein expressed, and the City 'has agreed and covenanted, and does hereby agree and covenant, with the Trustee and the respective owners of the Bonds as follows: Article I. Definitions Section 1.01. Definitions. All capitalized terms used herein unless otherwise defined shall have the meanings given in the recitals above and the following meanings for purposes of this Indenture: "AuthorizedDenomination" means $5,000 and any integral multiple thereof. "Authorized Officer" means (a) the Mayor, the Chief Financial Officer, the City Comptroller or any other official of the City so designated by a Certificate signed by the Mayor or Chief Financial Officer and filed with the Trustee for so long as such designation shall be in effect, and (b) the City Clerk with respect to the certification of any ordinance or resolution of the City Council or any other document filed in his or her office. "Beneficial Owner" means the owner of a beneficial interest in the Bonds registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC (or a successor securities depository or nominee for either of them). "Bond Counsel" means one or more firms of nationally recognized bond counsel designated by the Corporation Counsel of the City. "Bond Fund" means the fund of that name established and described in Section 4.03 hereof. "Bondholder," "holder," or "owner of (he Bonds" means the Registered Owner or Beneficial Owner of any Bond, as the case may be. "Bond Ordinance " has the meaning given to such term in the recitals hereto. "Bond Register" means the registration books of the City kept by the Trustee to evidence the registration and transfer of Bonds. "Bond Year" means a 12-month period commencing on January 2 of each calendar year and ending on January 1 ofthe next succeeding calendar year. -3- "Bonds" means the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015_ issued pursuant to Section 2.01 hereof. "Business Day" means any day other than (i) a Saturday or Sunday, (ii) a day on which banks located in the city where the Designated Corporate Trust Office is located are authorized or required by law to close, and (iii) a day on which The New York Stock Exchange, Inc., is closed. "Certificate" means an instrument of the City in writing signed by an Authorized Officer. Any such instrument in writing and supporting opinions or representations, if any, may, but need not, be combined in a single instrument with any other instrument, opinion or representation, and the two or more so combined shall be read and construed so as to form a single instrument. Any such instrument may be based, insofar as it relates to legal, accounting or engineering matters, upon the opinion or representation of counsel, accountants, or engineers, respectively, unless the officer signing such instrument knows that the opinion or representation with respect to the matters upon which such instrument may be based, as aforesaid, is erroneous. The same Authorized Officer, or the same counsel or accountant or other persons, as the case may be, need not certify to all of the matters required to be certified under any provision of this Indenture or any Supplemental Indenture, but different officers, counsel, accountants or other persons may certify to different facts, respectively. "Chief Financial Officer" means the Chief Financial Officer appointed by the Mayor, or the City Comptroller of the City at any time a vacancy exists in the office of the Chief Financial Officer. "City" means the City of Chicago, a municipal corporation and home rule unit of local government, organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State. "City Clerk" means the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City or any Deputy City Clerk or other person that may lawfully take a specific action or perform a specific duty prescribed for the City Clerk pursuant to the Bond Ordinance. "City Comptroller" meant the City Comptroller of the City. {"City Reimbursement Account" means the account of that name established and described in Section 4.04 hereof.] "Code " means the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986. References to the Code and to Sections of the Code shall include relevant final, temporary or proposed regulations thereunder as in effect from time to time and as applicable to obligations issued on the Date of Issuance. "Date of Issuance" means , 201_, the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds to the initial purchasers thereof. -4- "Defeasance Obligations" means: (1) moneys sufficient to make such payment; or (2)(A) direct obligations of the United States of America, (B) obligations of agencies of the United States of America, the timely payment of principal of and interest on which are guaranteed by the United States of America, (C) obligations of the following government-sponsored agencies that are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (FHLMC) debt obligations, Farm Credit System (formerly: Federal Land Banks, Federal Intermediate Credit Banks, and Banks for Cooperatives) debt obligations, Federal Home Loan Banks (FHL Banks) debt obligations, Fannie Mae debt obligations, Financing Corp. (FICO) debt obligations, Resolution Funding Corp. (REFCORP) debt obligations, and U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. A.I.D.) Guaranteed notes, (D) pre-refunded municipal obligations defined as follows: any bonds or other obligations of any state of the United States of America or of any agency, instrumentality or local governmental unit of any such state which are not callable at the option of the obligor prior to maturity or as to which irrevocable instructions have been given by the obligor to call on the date specified in the notice, or (E) instruments evidencing an ownership interest in obligations described in the preceding clauses (A), (B) and (C); or (3) a combination of the investments described in clauses (1) and (2) above. "Delivery Office" shall mean the following offices ofthe Trustee: For Notice Purposes: For Presentation of Bonds for payment or transfers: "Designated Corporate Trust Office" means the corporate trust office of the Trustee located at the address of the Trustee set forth in the definition of "Delivery Office" herein, as such address may be changed from time to time by the Trustee. "DTC" means The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, or its nominee, and its successors and assigns, or any other depository performing similar functions. "Federal Obligation" means any direct obligation of, or any obligation the full and timely payment of principal of and interest on which is guaranteed by, the United States of America. -5- ["Fitch" means Fitch Ratings Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws ofthe State of Delaware, its successors and assigns, and, if such corporation shall be dissolved or liquidated, or shall no longer perform the functions ofa securities rating agency, "Fitch" shall be deemed to refer to any other nationally recognized securities rating agency designated by the City by notice to the Trustee.) "Indenture" means this Indenture, as amended from time to time in accordance with Article IX hereof. "Interest Payment Date " means each January 1 and July 1. The initial Interest Payment Date shall be 1,201_. ["Kroll" means Kroll Bond Rating Agency, its successors and assigns, and, if Kroll shall be dissolved or liquidated or shall no longer perform the functions of a security rating agency, "Kroll" shall be deemed to refer lo any other nationally recognized securities rating agency designated by the City by notice to the Trustee.] "Maturity Dale" means, for the Bonds of each specified maturity, the applicable maturity date set forth in Section 2.02. "Municipal Code " means the Municipal Code of Chicago, as from time to time amended. "Opinion of Bond Counsel" means a written opinion of Bond Counsel in form and substance acceptable to the City. "Outstanding," means, when used with reference to any Bonds, all of such obligations issued under this Indenture that are unpaid, provided that such term does not include: Bonds canceled at or prior to such date or delivered to or acquired by the Trustee or Paying Agent at or prior to such date for cancellation; matured or redeemed Bonds which have not been presented for payment in accordance with the provisions of this Indenture and for the payment of which the City has deposited funds with the Trustee or Paying Agent; Bonds for which the City has provided for payment by depositing in an irrevocable trust or escrow, cash or Defeasance Obligations, in each case, the maturing principal of and interest on which will be sufficient to pay at maturity, or if called for redemption on the applicable redemption date, the principal of, redemption premium, if any, and interest on such Bonds; Bonds in lieu of or in exchange or substitution for which other Bonds shall have been authenticated and delivered pursuant to this Indenture; and Bonds owned by the City and tendered to the Trustee for cancellation. -6- "Participant," when used wilh respect to any Securities Depository, means any participant ofsuch Securities Depository. "Paying Agent" means the Trustee [and any additional Paying Agent designated by the Trustee pursuant to Section 8.04 hereof,) and any successor thereto. "Permitted Investments" means any ofthe following obligations or securities permitted under the laws ofthe State and the Municipal Code: interest-bearing general obligations of the United States of America, the State or the City; United States treasury bills and other non-interest bearing general obligations of the United States of America when offered for sale in the open market at a price below the face value of same, so as to afford the City a return on such investment in lieu of interest; short-term discount obligations of the United States Government or United States Government agencies; certificates of deposit of national banks or banks located within the City which are either (i) fully collateralized at least 110 percent by marketable United States Government securities marked to market at least monthly or (ii) secured by a corporate surety bond issued by an insurance company licensed to do business in the State and having a claims-paying rating in the top rating category as rated by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization and maintaining such rating during the term of such investment; banker's acceptances of banks and commercial paper of banks whose senior obligations are rated in the top two short-term rating categories by at least two national rating agencies and maintaining such rating during the term of such investment; tax-exempt securities exempt from federal arbitrage provisions applicable to investments of proceeds of the City's tax-exempt debt obligations; domestic money market mutual funds regulated by and in good standing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including any such fund for which the Trustee or any of its affiliates provides any service including any service for which a fee may be paid; and any other suitable investment instrument permitted by State laws and the Municipal Code governing municipal investments generally, subject to the reasonable exercise of prudence in making investments of public funds. "Principal and Interest Account" means the Account of that name established within the Bond Fund, as described in Section 4.03 hereof. -7- "Principal and Interest Account Requirement" means an amount, equal to the total principal installment and interest due on such Bonds as oi" each January 1 and July 1 (including any mandatory redemption ofthe Bonds as required by Section 3.01(c) hereof), which amount shall be deposited in the Principal and Interest Account not later than the Business Day prior to such January 1 and July 1. "Qualified Collateral" means: Federal Obligations; direct and general obligations of any state of the United States of America or any political subdivision of the State which are rated not less than "AA" or "Aa2" or their equivalents by any Rating Agency; and public housing bonds issued by public housing authorities and fully secured as to the payment of both principal and interest by a pledge of annual contributions under an annual contributions contract or contracts with the United States of America, or project notes issued by public housing authorities, or project notes issued by local public agencies, in each case fully secured as to the payment of both principal and interest by a requisition or payment agreement with the United States of America. ["Rating Agency" means any of Fitch, S&P and Kroll, or another rating agency that has a credit rating assigned to the Bonds at the request of the City.] "Record Date " means each June 15 and December 15 (whether or not a Business Day). "Redemption Price " means with respect to the Bonds, the principal amount thereof plus the applicable premium, if any, payable upon redemption thereof pursuant to the provisions of such Bonds. "Registered Owner" or "Owner" means the person or persons in whose name or names a Bond shall be registered in the Bond Register. "Securities Depository" means DTC and any other securities depository registered as a clearing agency with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and appointed as the securities depository for the Bonds. ["S&P" means Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC, a division of McGraw Hill Financial, Inc., its successors and assigns, and, if S&P shall be dissolved or liquidated or shall no longer perform the functions of a securities rating agency, "S&P" shall be deemed to refer to any other nationally recognized securities rating agency designated by the City by notice to the Trustee.] "State " means the State of Illinois. -8- "Supplemental Indenture" means any indenture modifying, altering, amending, supplementing or confirming this Indenture duly entered into in accordance with the terms hereof. "Trust Estate", means the property conveyed to the Trustee pursuant to the Granting Clauses hereof. "Trustee" means , a banking with trust powers, and its successors and any entity resulting from or surviving any consolidation or merger to which it or its successors may be a party, and any successor Trustee at the time serving as successor trustee hereunder. Article II The Bonds Section 2.01. Authority for and Issuance of Bonds, (a) No Bonds may be issued under the provisions of this Indenture except in accordance with this Article. Except as provided in Section 2.07 hereof, the total principal amount of Bonds that may be issued hereunder is expressly limited to $ ,000,000. The Bonds shall be designated "City of Chicago General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015_" and shall be issued as fully registered bonds, without coupons, in Authorized Denominations substantially in the form attached as Exhibit A thereto. Unless the City shall otherwise direct, the Bonds shall be lettered and numbered from R-l and upwards. Each Bond shall be dated the Date of Issuance and shall mature, subject to prior redemption as provided in Article III hereof, on its Maturity Date. Each Bond shall bear interest from the later of its date or the most recent Interest Payment Date to which interest has been paid or duly provided for, until the principal amount of such Bond is paid, such interest being payable on January 1 and July 1 of each year, commencing on 1, 201_. Interest on each Bond shall be paid to the person in whose name such Bond is registered at the close of business on the Record Date next preceding the applicable Interest Payment Date, by check or draft of the Trustee, or, at the option of any registered owner of $1,000,000 or more in aggregate principal amount of Bonds of a series, by wire transfer of immediately available funds to such bank in the continental United States of America as the registered owner of such Bonds shall request in writing to the Trustee. The principal of the Bonds and any redemption premium shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America which, at the respective dates of payment thereof, is legal tender for the payment of public and private debts, upon presentation and surrender thereof at the Designated Corporate Trust Office of the Trustee. Section 2.02. General Terms of Bonds. The Bonds shall mature on January 1 in each year shown in the following table in the respective principal amount set forth opposite each such year. The Bonds shall bear interest from and including the Date of Issuance as shown in the table -9- below until payment of the principal or Redemption Price thereof shall have been made or provided for in accordance with the provisions hereof, whether at the applicable Maturity Date, upon redemption or acceleration, or otherwise. Interest accrued on the Bonds shall be paid in arrears on each Interest Payment Date. Interest on the Bonds shall be computed upon the basis ofa 360 day year consisting of twelve 30 day months. Year Principal Interest Year Principal Interest (January 1) Amount Rate (January I) Amount Rate Section 2.03. Execution. The seal of the City or a facsimile thereof shall be affixed to or printed on each of the Bonds, and the Bonds shall be executed by the manual or facsimile signature of the Mayor and attested by the manual or facsimile signature of the City Clerk, and in case any officer whose signature shall appear on any Bond shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of such Bond, such signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all proposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery. Section 2.04. Authentication. All Bonds shall have thereon a certificate of authentication substantially in the form attached hereto as part of Exhibit A duly executed by the Trustee as authenticating agent of the City and showing the date of authentication. No Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under this Indenture unless and until such certificate of authentication shall have been duly executed by the Trustee by manual signature, and such certificate of authentication upon any such Bond shall be conclusive evidence that such Bond has been authenticated and delivered under the Bond Ordinance and this Indenture. The certificate of authentication on any Bond shall be deemed to have been executed by the Trustee if signed by an authorized officer of such Trustee, but it shall not be necessary that the same officer sign the certificate of authentication on all of the Bonds issued hereunder. Section 2.05. Form of Bonds; Temporary Bonds. The Bonds issued under this Indenture shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, with such appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as are permitted or required by the Bond Ordinance and this Indenture. Pending preparation of definitive Bonds, or by agreement with the purchasers of the Bonds, the City may issue and, upon its request, the Trustee shall authenticate, in lieu of definitive Bonds, one or more temporary printed or typewritten Bonds in Authorized Denominations of substantially the tenor recited above. Upon request of the City, the Trustee -10- shall authenticate definitive Bonds in exchange for and upon surrender of an equal principal amount of temporary Bonds. Until so exchanged, temporary Bonds shall have the same rights, remedies and security hereunder as definitive Bonds. Section 2.06. Delivery of Bonds. Upon the execution and delivery of this Indenture, the Cily shall execute and deliver to the Trustee, and the Trustee shall authenticate, the Bonds and deliver them to the purchasers as may be directed by the City as hereinafter in this Section provided. Prior to the delivery by the Trustee of any of the Bonds there shall be filed with the Trustee: copies, duly certified by the City Clerk of the City, of the Bond Ordinance; original executed counterparts of this Indenture; an Opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that this Indenture (i) has been duly and lawfully authorized by the City Council of the City and executed by the City in accordance with the provisions of the Bond Ordinance and (ii) will, when executed and delivered by the Trustee, be valid and binding upon the City and enforceable in accordance with its terms; and a Certificate executed by an Authorized Officer stating that all conditions precedent with respect to the execution of all documents by the City relating to the Bonds' have been satisfied. Section 2.07. Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. If any Bond, whether in temporary or definitive form, is lost (whether by reason of theft or otherwise), destroyed (whether by mutilation, damage, in whole or in part, or otherwise) or improperly cancelled, the Trustee may authenticate a new Bond of like date, maturity date, interest rate, denomination and principal amount and bearing a number not contemporaneously outstanding; provided that (i) in the case of any mutilated Bond, such mutilated Bond shall first be surrendered to the Trustee, and (ii) in the case of any lost Bond or Bond destroyed in whole, there shall be first furnished to the Trustee evidence of such loss, theft, or destruction satisfactory to the City and the Trustee, together with indemnification of the City and the Trustee, satisfactory to the Trustee. If any lost, destroyed or improperly cancelled Bond shall have matured or is about to mature, or has been called for redemption, instead of issuing a duplicate Bond, the Trustee shall pay the same without surrender thereof if there shall be first furnished to the Trustee evidence of such loss, destruction or cancellation, together with indemnity, satisfactory to it. Upon the issuance of any substitute Bond, the Trustee may require the payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge that may be imposed in relation thereto. All Bonds shall be owned upon the express condition that the foregoing provisions, to the extent permitted by law, are exclusive with respect to the replacement or payment of mutilated, -11- destroyed, lost, stolen or purchased Bonds, and shall preclude any and all other rights or remedies. Section 2.08. Transfer and Exchange of Bonds; Persons Treated as Owners, (a) Subject to the limitations contained in subsection (c) of this Section, upon surrender for registration of transfer of any Bond at the Designated Corporate Trust Office of the Trustee, duly endorsed by, or accompanied by a written instrument or instruments of transfer in form satisfactory to the Trustee and duly executed by the Bondholder or such Bondholder's attorney duly authorized in writing in such form and with guarantee of signature as shall be satisfactory to the Trustee, the City shall execute, and the Trustee shall authenticate and deliver, in the name ofthe transferee or transferees, one or more fully registered Bonds of the same interest rate and Maturity Date of Authorized Denominations, for a like principal amount bearing numbers not contemporaneously outstanding. Subject to the limitations contained in subsection (c) of this Section, Bonds may be exchanged at the Designated Corporate Trust Office of the Trustee for a like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of the same interest rate and Maturity Date of other Authorized Denominations bearing numbers not contemporaneously outstanding. No service charge shall be made for any transfer or exchange of Bonds, but the City or the Trustee may require payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge that may be imposed in connection with any transfer or exchange of Bonds, except that no such payment may be required in the case of the issuance of a Bond or Bonds for the unredeemed portion of a Bond surrendered for redemption. The Trustee shall not be required to transfer or exchange any Bond during the period commencing on the Record Date next preceding any Interest Payment Date of such Bond and ending on such Interest Payment Date, or to transfer or exchange such Bond after the mailing of notice calling such Bond for redemption has been made as herein provided or during the period of 15 days next preceding the giving of notice of redemption of Bonds of the same Maturity Date and interest rate. Bonds delivered upon any registration of transfer or exchange as provided herein or as provided in Section 2.07 hereof shall be valid general obligations of the City, evidencing the same debt as the Bonds surrendered, shall be secured by this Indenture and shall be entitled to all of the security and benefits hereof and of the Bond Ordinance to the same extent as the Bond surrendered. The City, the Trustee and any Paying Agent may treat the Registered Owner of any Bond as the absolute owner thereof for all purposes, whether or not such Bond shall be overdue, and shall not be bound by any notice to the contrary. All payments of or on account of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on any such Bond as herein provided shall be made only to or upon the written order of the Registered Owner thereof or such Registered Owner's legal representative, but such registration may be changed as herein provided. All such payments shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon such Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. Section 2.09. Required Information in Bond Form. On each date on which the Trustee authenticates and delivers a Bond, it shall complete the information required to be inserted by the Bond form and shall keep a record of such information. -12- Section 2.10. Cancellation. Any Bond surrendered for the purpose of payment or retirement, or for exchange, transfer or replacement, shall be canceled upon surrender thereof to the Trustee or any Paying Agent. Jf the City shall acquire any of the Bonds, the City shall deliver such Bonds to the Trustee for cancellation and the Trustee shall cancel the same. Any such Bonds canceled by any Paying Agent other than the Trustee shall be promptly transmitted by such Paying Agent to the Trustee. Certification of Bonds canceled by the Trustee and Bonds canceled by a Paying Agent other than the Trustee which are transmitted to the Trustee shall be made to the City. Canceled Bonds may be destroyed by the Trustee unless instructions to the contrary are received from the Cily. Section 2.11. Book Entry Provisions. The provisions of this Section shall apply as long as the Bonds are maintained in book entry form with DTC or another Securities Depository, any provisions of this Indenture to the contrary notwithstanding. Notwithstanding anything else to the contrary herein, so long as DTC is the Securities Depository, the Bonds shall be subject to the operational arrangements of DTC in effect from time to time. The Bonds shall be payable to the Securities Depository, or its nominee, as the Registered Owner of the Bonds, in same day funds on each date on which the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds is due as set forth in this Indenture and the Bonds. Such payments shall be made to the offices of the Securities Depository specified by the Securities Depository to the City and the Trustee in writing. Without notice to or the consent of the Beneficial Owners of the Bonds, the City and the Securities Depository may agree in writing to make payments of principal and interest in a manner different from that set forth herein. If such different manner of payment is agreed upon, the City shall give the Trustee notice thereof, and the Trustee shall make ยฆ payments with respect to the Bonds in the manner specified in such notice. Neither the City nor the Trustee shall have any obligation with respect to the transfer or crediting of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds to Participants or the Beneficial Owners of the Bonds or their nominees. If (i) the City determines, or (ii) the City receives notice that the Securities Depository has received notice from its Participants having interests in at least 50 percent in principal amount of the Bonds, that the Securities Depository or its successor is incapable of discharging its responsibilities as a securities depository, or that it is in the best interests of the Beneficial Owners that they obtain certificated Bonds, the City may (or, in the case of clause (ii) above, the City shall) cause the Trustee to authenticate and deliver Bond certificates. The City shall have no obligation to make any investigation to determine the occurrence of any events that would permit the City to make any determination described in this paragraph. If, following a determination or event specified in paragraph (b) above, the City discontinues the maintenance of the Bonds in book entry form with the then current Securities Depository, the City will issue replacement Bonds to the replacement Securities Depository, if any, or, if no replacement Securities Depository is selected for the Bonds, directly to the Participants as shown on the records of the former Securities Depository or, to the extent requested by any Participant, to the Beneficial Owners of the -13- Bonds shown on the records of such Participant. Any such Bonds so issued in replacement shall be in fully registered form and in Authorized Denominations, be payable as to interest on the Interest Payment Dates ofthe Bonds by check mailed to each Registered Owner at the address of such Registered Owner as it appears on the Bond Register or, at the option of any Registered Owner of not less than $1,000,000 principal amount of Bonds, by wire transfer lo any address in the United States of America on such Interest Payment Date to such Registered Owner as of such Record Date, if such Registered Owner provides the Trustee with written notice of such wire transfer address not later than the Record Date (which notice may provide that it will remain in effect with respect to subsequent Interest Payment Dates unless and until changed or revoked by subsequent notice). Principal and premium, if any, on the replacement Bonds arc payable only upon presentation and surrender of such replacement Bond or Bonds at the Designated Corporate Trust Office ofthe Trustee. The Securities Depository and its Participants, and the Beneficial Owners of the Bonds, by their acceptance of the Bonds, agree that the City and the Trustee shall not have liability for the failure of such Securities Depository to perform its obligations to the Participants and the Beneficial Owners of the Bonds, nor shall the City or the Trustee be liable for the failure of any Participant or other nominee of the Beneficial Owners to perform any obligation of the Participant to a Beneficial Owner of the Bonds. As long as Cede & Co. (or such other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC) is the Registered Owner of the Bonds, as nominee of DTC, references herein to the Registered Owners of the Bonds shall mean Cede & Co. and shall not mean the Beneficial Owners of the Bonds. As long as Cede & Co. (or such other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC) is the Registered Owner of the Bonds: selection of Bonds to be redeemed upon partial redemption or presentation of Bonds to the Trustee upon partial redemption, shall be deemed made when the right to exercise ownership rights in such Bonds through DTC or DTC's Participants is transferred by DTC on its books; any notices of the interest rate on the Bonds to be provided by the Trustee shall be provided to anyone identifying itself to the Trustee as a person entitled to exercise ownership rights with respect to such Bonds through DTC or its Participants; and DTC may present notices, approvals, waivers or other communications required or permitted to be made by Registered Owners under this Indenture on a fractionalized basis on behalf of some or all of those persons entitled to exercise ownership rights in the Bonds through DTC or its Participants. -14- Article III Redemption of Bonds Section 3.OJ. Redemption Terms, Dates and Prices. The Bonds shall be subject to redemption prior to their Maturity Date in the amounts, at the times and in the manner provided in this Section. (a) Optional Redemption. The Bonds are subject to optional redemption, on any date occurring or after 1, 20 , in such principal amounts and from such maturities and interest rates as the City shall determine and by lot within a single maturity and interest rate, at a Redemption Price of 100% of the principal amount thereof being redeemed plus accrued interest, if any, to the date of redemption. [Insert make-whole redemption provisions authorized by Bond Ordinance if applicable] The City is authorized to sell or waive any right the City may have to call any of the Bonds for optional redemption, in whole or in part; provided, that such sale or waiver will not adversely affect the excludability of interest on the Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes. (b) General Provisions Regarding Redemptions. No redemption of less than all of the Bonds Outstanding shall be made pursuant to Section 3.01(a) hereof unless the aggregate principal amount of Bonds to be redeemed is equal to $5,000 multiples. Any redemption of less than all of the Bonds Outstanding shall be made in such a manner that all Bonds Outstanding after such redemption are in Authorized Denominations. If fewer than all Bonds Outstanding are to be optionally redeemed, the Bonds to be called shall be called from such maturities and interest rates as may be determined by an Authorized Officer. Bonds may be called for redemption by the Trustee pursuant to Sections 3.01(a) and 3.01(c) hereof upon receipt by the Trustee at least 45 days prior to the redemption date (unless a shorter time period shall be satisfactory to the Trustee) of, in the case of a redemption pursuant to Section 3.01(a) of a written request of the City requesting such redemption, or in the case of a redemption pursuant to Section 3.01(c) in accordance with the mandatory schedule provided herein. In lieu of redeeming Bonds pursuant to Section 3.01(a) hereof, the Trustee may, at the request of the City, use such funds available hereunder for redemption of Bonds to purchase Bonds in the open market at a price not exceeding the Redemption Price then applicable hereunder. Any Bond so purchased in lieu of redemption shall be delivered to the Trustee for cancellation and shall be canceled, all as provided in Section 2.10 hereof. -15- (c) Mandatory Redemption of Bonds. The Bonds maturing on January 1, 20 are subject to mandatory redemption prior to maturity on January 1 of the years and in the amounts set forth below, at a Redemption Price equal to 100 percent ofthe principal amount thereof plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption: Year Principal Amount โขFinal Maturity The Bonds maturing on January 1, 20 are subject to mandatory redemption prior to maturity at a Redemption Price on January 1 of the years and in the amounts set forth below, at a Redemption Price equal to 100 percent of the principal amount thereof plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption: Year Principal Amount โขFinal Maturity The principal amount of the Bonds to be mandatorily redeemed in each year may be reduced through the earlier optional redemption thereof, with any partial optional redemption of such Bonds credited against future mandatory redemption requirements in such order of the mandatory redemption dates as the City may determine. In addition, on or prior to the sixtieth (60th) day preceding any mandatory redemption date, the Trustee may, and if directed by the City shall, purchase Bonds required to be retired on such mandatory redemption date at such prices as the City shall determine. Any such Bond so purchased shall be canceled and the principal amount thereof shall be credited against the payment required on such next mandatory redemption date. -16- Section 3.02. Notice of Redemption, (a) Unless waived by any owner of Bonds to be redeemed, notice of the call for any such redemption shall be given by the Trustee on behalf of the City by mailing the redemption notice by first class mail at least 30 days and not more than 60 days prior to the date fixed lor redemption to the Registered Owner of the Bond or Bonds to be redeemed at the address shown on the Bond Register or at such other address as is furnished in writing by such Registered Owner to the Trustee, but the failure to mail any such notice or any defect therein as to any Bond shall not affect the validity of the proceedings for the redemption of any other Bond. Any notice of redemption mailed as provided in this Section 3.02 hereof shall be conclusively presumed to have been given whether or not actually received by the addressee. All notices of redemption shall state: the Series designation of the Bonds to be redeemed, the redemption date, the Redemption Price, if less than all outstanding Bonds are to be redeemed, the identification (and, in the case of partial redemption, the respective principal amounts and interest rates) of the Bonds to be redeemed, that on the redemption date the Redemption Price will become due and payable upon each such Bond or portion thereof called for redemption, and that interest thereon shall cease to accrue or compound from and after said date, the place where such Bonds are to be surrendered for payment of the Redemption Price, and such other information as shall be deemed necessary by the Trustee at the time such notice is given to comply with law, regulation or industry standard. (b) With respect to an optional redemption of Bonds, such notice may state that said redemption is conditioned upon the receipt by the Trustee on or prior to the date fixed for redemption of moneys sufficient to pay the Redemption Price of the Bonds. If such moneys are not so received, such redemption notice shall be of no force and effect, the City shall not redeem such Bonds and such failure to deposit such funds shall not constitute an Event of Default under this Indenture. The Trustee shall give notice, in the same manner in which the notice of redemption was given, that such moneys were not so received and that such Bonds will not be redeemed. Unless the notice of redemption shall be made conditional as provided above, on or prior to any redemption date for the Bonds, the City shall deposit with the Trustee an amount of money sufficient to pay the Redemption Price of all the Bonds or portions thereof which are to be redeemed on that date. -17- Notice of redemption having been given as aforesaid, the Bonds, or portions thereof, so to be redeemed shall, on the redemption date, become due and payable at the Redemption Price therein specified, and from and after such date (unless the City shall default in the payment ofthe Redemption Price or unless, in the event ofa conditional notice as described above, the necessary moneys were not deposited) such Bonds, or portions thereof, shall cease,to bear interest. Upon surrender of such Bonds for redemption in accordance with said notice, such Bonds shall be paid by the Trustee at the Redemption Price. Installments of interest due on or prior to the redemption dale shall be payable as herein provided for payment of interest. Upon surrender for any partial redemption of any Bond, there shall be prepared for the Registered Owner a new Bond or Bonds of the same interest rate and maturity in the amount of the unpaid principal. If any Bond, or portion thereof, called for redemption shall not be so paid upon surrender thereof for redemption, the principal shall, until paid, bear interest from the redemption date at the rate borne by such Bond, or portion thereof, so called for redemption. All Bonds which have been redeemed shall be cancelled and destroyed by the Trustee and shall not be reissued. Failure to give notice in the manner prescribed hereunder with respect to any Bond, or any defect in such notice, shall not affect the validity of the proceedings for redemption for any Bond with respect to which notice was properly given. Upon the happening of the above conditions and if sufficient moneys are on deposit with the Trustee on the applicable redemption date to redeem the Bonds to be redeemed and to pay interest due thereon and premium, if any, the Bonds thus called shall not, after the applicable redemption date, bear interest, be protected by this Indenture or the Bond Ordinance or be deemed to be Outstanding under the provisions of this Indenture. If any Bond is transferred or exchanged on the Bond Register after notice has been given calling such Bond for redemption, the Trustee will attach a copy of such notice to the Bond issued in connection with such transfer or exchange. If any Bond is not presented for payment when the principal amount thereof becomes due, either at maturity or at a date fixed for redemption thereof or otherwise, and if moneys sufficient to pay such Bond are held by the Trustee for the benefit of the Registered Owner of such Bond, the Trustee shall hold such moneys for the benefit of the Registered Owner of such Bond without liability to the Registered Owner for interest. The Registered Owner of such Bond thereafter shall be restricted exclusively to such funds for satisfaction of any claims relating to such Bond. Section 3.03. Selection of Bonds for Redemption. If less than all the Bonds shall be called for redemption under any provision of this Indenture permitting such partial redemption, (i) such redemption shall be by lot in such manner as the Trustee may determine among such Bonds, and (ii) subject to other applicable provisions of this Indenture, the portion of any Bond to be redeemed shall be in a principal amount equal to an Authorized Denomination. In selecting Bonds for redemption, the Trustee shall assign to each Bond of like Maturity Date and interest rate, a distinctive number for each minimum Authorized Denomination of such Bond and shall -18- select by lot from the numbers so assigned as many numbers as, at such minimum Authorized Denomination for each number, shall equal the principal amount of such Bonds to be redeemed. In such case, the Bonds to be redeemed shall be those to which were assigned numbers so selected; provided that only so much of the principal amount of each Bond shall be redeemed as shall equal such minimum authorized denomination for each number assigned to it and so selected. If it is determined that one or more, but not all, of the integral multiples of the Authorized Denomination of principal amount represented by any Bond is to be called for redemption, then, upon notice of intention to redeem1 such integral multiple of an Authorized Denomination, the Registered Owner of such Bond shall forthwith surrender such Bond to the Trustee for (a) payment to such Registered Owner of the Redemption Price of the integral multiple of the Authorized Denomination of principal amount called for redemption, and (b) delivery to such Registered Owner of a new Bond or Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of the unredeemed balance of the principal amount of such Bond. New Bonds representing the unredeemed balance of the principal amount of such Bond shall be issued to the Registered Owner thereof without charge therefor. The Trustee shall promptly notify the City in writing of the Bonds, or portions thereof, selected for redemption and, in the case of any Bond selected for partial redemption, the principal amount thereof, and the interest rate thereof to be redeemed. Section 3.04. Deposit of Funds. For the redemption of any of the Bonds, the City shall cause to be deposited in the Principal and Interest Account moneys sufficient to pay when due the principal of, and premium, if any, and interest on, the Bonds to be redeemed on the redemption date to be applied in accordance with the provisions hereof. Article IV Application of Bond Proceeds; Creation of Funds and Security for Bonds Section 4.01. Source of Payment of Bonds. Pursuant to the Bond Ordinance, the Bonds constitute direct and general obligations of the City for the payment of which the City pledges its full faith and credit. Section 4.02. Application of Bond Proceeds. The proceeds of the sale of the Bonds, consisting of the principal amount of the Bonds [plus/minus] [net] original issue [premium/discount] of $ used in the marketing of the Bonds and less an Underwriters' discount of $ , shall be applied simultaneously with their delivery as follows: (i) [To come based on use of proceeds of Series] (ii) -19- Section 4.03. Creation of Accounts in Bond Fund, (a) There is established with the Trustee a trust fund designated "City of Chicago General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015_ Bond Fund." At each such time as is required under this Indenture, the City shall deposit into the Bond Fund, from funds of the City legally available therefor, an amount sufficient to satisfy the Principal and Interest Account Requirement. Money on deposit in the Bond Fund shall be applied by the Trustee to pay the principal of (whether due at maturity or by mandatory redemption) and interest on the Bonds as the same become due. Pending the use of moneys held in the Bond Fund, the Trustee shall invest such moneys in Permitted Investments upon the direction of an Authorized Officer or any person designated by an Authorized Officer. Income from such investments shall be credited to the Bond Fund. (b) Creation of Principal and Interest Account. There is established with the Trustee an account within (he Bond Fund, designated as the "Series 2015_ Principal and Interest Account" (the "Principal and Interest Account"). [ Section 4.04. City Reimbursement Account. There is established with the Trustee a trust account designated "City Reimbursement Account." The Trustee shall deposit into the City Reimbursement Account such amounts as are set forth in the closing memorandum in connection with the conversion of the Bonds. The Trustee shall release funds, from time to time, from such account in accordance with written directions from an Authorized Officer of the City. Such funds shall be held by the Trustee uninvested in cash, without liability for interest. Upon the disbursement of all amounts from the City Reimbursement Account the Trustee shall close such account without further direction.] Section 4.05. Deposits into Bond Fund and Account Therein. Not later than the Business Day prior to each Interest Payment Date, commencing 1, 201_ (each such date referred to herein as the "Deposit Date ") there shall be on deposit in the Bond Fund an amount equal to the Principal and Interest Account Requirement (such amount with respect to any Deposit Date being referred to herein as the "Series 2015_ Deposit Requirement"). In addition to the Series 2015_ Deposit Requirement, there shall be deposited into the Bond Fund any other moneys received by the Trustee under and pursuant to this Indenture, when accompanied by directions from the person depositing such moneys that such moneys are to be paid into the Bond Fund and to one or more accounts therein. Upon calculation by the Trustee of each Series 2015_ Deposit Requirement under this Section, the Trustee shall notify the City of the Series 2015_ Deposit Requirement and the Deposit Date to which it relates, and shall provide the City with such supporting documentation and calculations as the City may reasonably request. -20- Section 4.06. Tax Covenants, (a) The City covenants that it will take no action in the investment of the proceeds of the Bonds which would result in making the interest payable on any of such Bonds subject to federal income taxes by reason of such Bonds being classified as "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 ofthe Code. (b) The City further covenants that it will act with respect to the proceeds of the Bonds, the earnings on the proceeds of such Bonds and any other moneys on deposit in any fund or account maintained in respect ofsuch Bonds, including, if necessary, a rebate of such earnings to the United States of America, in a manner which would cause the interest on such Bonds to continue to be exempt from federal income taxation under Section 103(a) of the Code. Section 4.07. Non-presentment of Bonds. In the event any Bond shall not be presented for payment when the principal thereof becomes due, whether at maturity, at the date fixed for redemption or otherwise, if moneys sufficient to pay such Bond shall have been made available to the Trustee for the benefit of the Registered Owner thereof, subject to the provisions of the immediately following paragraph, all liability of the City to the Registered Owner thereof for the payment of such Bond shall forthwith cease, determine and be completely discharged, and thereupon it shall be the duty of the Trustee to hold such moneys, without liability for interest thereon, for the benefit of the Registered Owner of such Bond who shall thereafter be restricted exclusively to such moneys, for any claim of whatever nature on his or her part under this Indenture or on, or with respect to, such Bond. Any moneys so deposited with and held by the Trustee not so applied to the payment of Bonds within two years after the date on which the same shall have become due shall be repaid by the Trustee to the City, and thereafter the Registered Owners of such Bonds shall be entitled to look only to the City for payment, and then only to the extent of the amount so repaid, and all liability of the Trustee with respect to such moneys shall thereupon cease, and the City shall nol be liable for any interest thereon and shall not be regarded as a trustee of such moneys. The obligation of the Trustee under this Section to pay any such funds to the City shall be subject, however, to any provisions of law applicable to the Trustee or to such funds providing other requirements for disposition of unclaimed property. Section 4.08. Moneys Held in Trust. All moneys required to be deposited with or paid to the Trustee for the account of any fund or account referred to in any provision of this Indenture shall be held by the Trustee in trust as provided in Section 8.08 of this Indenture, and shall, while held by the Trustee, constitute part of the Trust Estate and be subject to the lien or security interest created hereby. Article V Investment of Moneys Section 5.01. Investment of Moneys. Moneys held in the funds, accounts and subaccounts established hereunder shall be invested and reinvested in accordance with the provisions governing investments contained in this Indenture. All such investments shall be held by or -21- under the control ofthe Trustee and shall be deemed at all times a part ofthe fund, account or subaccount for which they were made. Section 5.02. Investment Income. The interest earned on any investment of moneys held hereunder, any profit realized from such investment and any loss resulting from such investment shall be credited or charged lo the fund, account or subaccount for which such investment was made. Article VI Discharge of Lien Section 6.01. Defeasance, (a) If the City shall pay to the Registered Owners of the Bonds, or provide for the payment of, the principal, premium, if any, and interest to become due on the Bonds, then this Indenture and the Bond Ordinance shall be fully discharged and satisfied with respect to the Bonds. Upon the satisfaction and discharge of this Indenture, the Trustee shall, upon the request of the City, execute and deliver to. the City all such instruments as may be desirable to evidence such discharge and satisfaction, and all fiduciaries shall pay over or deliver to the City all funds, accounts and other moneys or securities held by them pursuant to this Indenture which are not required for the payment or redemption of the Bonds. If payment or provision for payment is made, to or for the Registered Owners of all or a portion of the Bonds, of the principal of and interest due and to become due on any Bond at the times and in the manner stipulated therein, and there is paid or caused to be paid to the Trustee all sums of money due and to become due according to the provisions of this Indenture, then these presents and the estate and rights hereby and by the Bond Ordinance granted shall cease, terminate and be void as to those Bonds or portions thereof except for purposes of registration, transfer and exchange of Bonds and any such payment from such moneys or obligations. Any Bond shall be deemed to be paid within the meaning of this Section when payment of the principal of any such Bond, plus interest thereon to the due date thereof (whether such due date be by reason of maturity or upon redemption as provided in this Indenture or otherwise), either (a) shall have been made or caused to have been made in accordance with the terms thereof, or (b) shall have been provided for by irrevocably depositing with the Trustee, in trust and exclusively for such payment, (1) moneys sufficient to make such payment or (2) Defeasance Obligations, or (3) a combination of the investments described in clauses (1) and (2) above, such amounts so deposited being available or maturing as to principal and interest in such amounts and at such times, without consideration of any reinvestment thereof, as will insure the availability of sufficient moneys to make such payment (all as confirmed by a nationally recognized firm of independent public accountants). If the City shall pay and discharge a portion of the Bonds as aforesaid, such portion shall cease to be entitled to any lien, benefit or security under this Indenture and the Bond Ordinance. The liability of the City with respect to such Bonds shall continue, but the Registered Owners thereof shall thereafter be entitled to payment (to the exclusion of all other Bondholders) only out of the Defeasance Obligations deposited with the Trustee under Article VIII of this Indenture. (b) No such deposit under this Section shall be made or accepted hereunder and no use made of any such deposit unless the Trustee shall have received an opinion of nationally recognized municipal bond counsel to the effect that such deposit and use would not cause any of -22- such Bonds to be treated as '"arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 ofthe Code or any successor provision thereto. (c) Nothing in this Indenture shall prohibit a defeasance deposit of escrow securities as provided in this section from being subject to a subsequent sale of such escrow securities and reinvestment of all or a portion of the proceeds of that sale in escrow securities which, together with money to remain so held in trust, shall be sufficient to provide for payment of principal, redemption premium, if any, and interest on any of the defeased Bonds. Amounts held by the Trustee in excess of the amounts needed so to provide for payment of the defeased Bonds may be subject to withdrawal by the City. Article VII Default Provisions; Remedies Section 7.01. Defaults. Each of the following events is hereby declared to be an "Event of Default": payment of the principal or Redemption Price, if any, of any Bonds shall not be made when and as the same shall become due, whether at maturity or upon call for redemption or otherwise; payment of any installment of interest on any Bonds shall not be made when and as the same shall become due; or the City shall fail or refuse to comply with the provisions of this Indenture, or shall default in the performance or observance of any of the covenants, agreements or conditions on its part contained herein or in the Bonds, which materially affects the rights ofthe owners of the Bonds and such failure, refusal or default shall continue for a period of 45 days after written notice thereof by the Trustee or the owners of not less than 25 percent in principal amount of the Outstanding Bonds; provided, however, that in the case of any such default which can be cured by due diligence but which cannot be cured within the 45-day period, the time to cure shall be extended for such period as may be necessary to remedy the default with all diligence. Section 7.02. Remedies, (a) Upon the happening and continuance of any Event of Default specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of Section 7.01 hereof, the Trustee shall proceed, or upon the happening and continuance of any Event of Default (beyond the time periods specified therein) specified in paragraph (c) of Section 7.01 hereof, the Trustee may proceed, and upon the written request of the owners of not less than 25 percent in principal amount of the Outstanding Bonds, shall proceed, in its own name, subject to the provisions of this Section, to protect and enforce its rights and the rights of the owners of the Bonds by such of the following remedies as the Trustee, being advised by counsel, shall deem most effectual to protect and enforce such rights: (i) by mandamus or other suit, action or proceeding at law or in equity, to enforce all rights of the owners of the Bonds including the right to require the City to -23- receive and collect taxes adequate to carry out the covenants and agreements as to such taxes and to require the City to carry out any other covenant or agreement with the owners of the Bonds and to perform its duties under this Indenture; by bringing suit upon the Bonds; by action or suit in equity, require the City to account as if it were the trustee of an express trust for the owners of the Bonds; and/or by action or suit in equity, enjoin any acts or things which may be unlawful or in violation ofthe rights of the owners ofthe Bonds. In the enforcement of any rights and remedies under this Indenture, the Trustee shall be entitled to sue for, enforce payment of and receive any and all amounts then or during any default becoming, and at any time remaining, due from the City but only out of moneys pledged as security for the Bonds for principal, Redemption Price, interest or otherwise, under any provision of this Indenture or of the Bonds, and unpaid, with interest on overdue payments at the rale or rates of interest specified in such Bonds, together with any and all costs and expenses of collection and of all proceedings hereunder and under such Bonds without prejudice to any other right or remedy of the Trustee or of the owners of the Bonds, and to recover and enforce a judgment or decree against the City for any portion of such amounts remaining unpaid, with interest, costs and expenses, and to collect from any moneys available under this Indenture for such purpose, in any manner provided by law, the moneys adjudged or decreed to be payable. Under no circumstance may the Trustee declare the principal of or interest on any Bond to be due and payable prior to its Maturity Date following the occurrence of an Event of Default under this Indenture. Article VIII Trustee and Paying Agent Section 8.01. Acceptance of Trusts. The Trustee hereby accepts the trusts imposed upon it by this Indenture, and agrees to perform said trusts, but only upon and subject to the express terms and conditions set forth herein. Except as otherwise expressly set forth in this Indenture, the Trustee assumes no duties, responsibilities or liabilities by reason of its execution of this Indenture other than as set forth in this Indenture, and this Indenture is executed and accepted by the Trustee subject to all the terms and conditions of its acceptance of the trust under this Indenture. The Trustee shall make payments to Bondholders and effect optional and mandatory redemptions when required, whether or not its fees and expenses have been fully paid. Section 8.02. Dealing in Bonds. The Trustee, in its individual capacity, may buy, sell, own, hold and deal in any of the Bonds, and may join in any action which the Registered Owner of any Bond may be entitled to take with like effect as if it did not act in any capacity hereunder. The Trustee, in its individual capacity, either as principal or agent, may also engage in or be interested in any financial or other function with the City, and may act as depositary, trustee or -24- agent for any committee or body of the Registered Owners of Bonds secured hereby or other obligations ofthe City as freely as if it did not act in any capacity hereunder. Section 8.03. Compensation of Trustee. The City shall pay to the Trustee from time to time reasonable compensation for all services rendered under this Indenture and also all reasonable expenses, charges, counsel fees and other disbursements, including those of their attorneys, agents and employees incurred in and about the performance of their powers and duties under this Indenture and, except as provided in Section 8.01 hereof the Trustee shall have a lien therefor on any and all moneys at any time held by it under this Indenture. The City further agrees to indemnify and save the Trustee harmless against any liabilities which it may incur in the exercise and performance of its powers and duties hereunder, which are not due to its negligence or default. Section 8.04. Paying Agent. The Trustee may appoint a Paying Agent with power to act on its behalf and subject to its direction (i) in the authentication, registration and delivery of Bonds in connection with transfers and exchanges hereunder, as fully to all intents and purposes as though such Paying Agent had been expressly authorized by this Indenture to authenticate, register and deliver Bonds, and (ii) for effecting purchases and sales of Bonds pursuant hereto and accepting deliveries of Bonds, making deliveries of Bonds and holding Bonds pursuant hereto. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Trustee need not appoint a Paying Agent hereunder as long as the Bonds are held in book-entry form pursuant to Section 2.11 hereof; at any time the Bonds are not held in book-entry form pursuant to Section 2.11 hereof, the Trustee shall either maintain an office in New York, New York capable of handling the duties of Paying Agent hereunder, or shall appoint a Paying Agent with an office in New York, New York hereunder. Any Paying Agent appointed pursuant to this Section shall evidence its acceptance by a certificate filed with the Trustee, the Bank and the City. For all purposes of this Indenture, the authentication, registration and delivery of Bonds by or to any Paying Agent pursuant to this Section 8.04 shall be deemed to be the authentication, registration and delivery of Bonds "by or to the Trustee." Such Paying Agent shall at all times be a commercial bank or trust company having an office in New York, New York, and shall at all times be a corporation organized and doing business under the laws of the United States of America or of any state with combined capital and surplus of at least $50,000,000 and in each case authorized under such laws to exercise corporate trust powers and subject to supervision or examination by Federal or state authority. If such corporation publishes reports of condition at least annually pursuant to law or the requirements of such authority, then for the purposes of this Section the combined capital and surplus of such corporation shall be deemed to be its combined capital and surplus as set forth in its most recent report of condition so published. Any corporation into which such Paying Agent may be merged or converted, or with which it may be consolidated, or any corporation resulting from any merger, consolidation or conversion to which such Paying Agent shall be a party, or any corporation succeeding to the corporate trust business of such Paying Agent, shall be a successor of such Paying Agent hereunder, if such successor corporation is otherwise eligible under this Section, without the execution or filing or any further act on the part of the parties hereto or such Paying Agent or such successor corporation. -25- Any Paying Agent may at any lime resign by giving written notice of resignation to the Trustee and the City, and such resignation shall lake effect at the appointment by the Trustee ofa successor Paying Agent pursuant to the succeeding provisions of this Section and the acceptance by the successor Paying Agent of such appointment. The Trustee may at any time terminate the agency of any Paying Agent by giving written notice of termination to such Paying Agent and the Cily, which termination shall not lake effect until the acceptance by Ihe successor Paying Agent of such appointment. Upon receiving such a notice of resignation or upon such a termination, or in case at any time such Paying Agent shall cease to be eligible under this Section, the Trustee shall promptly appoint a successor Paying Agent, shall give written notice of such appointment to the City and shall mail notice ofsuch appointment to all Registered Owners of Bonds. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, any Paying Agent shall be entitled to rely on information furnished to it orally or in writing by the Trustee and shall be protected hereunder in relying thereon. The Trustee agrees to pay to any Paying Agent from time to time its fees and expenses for its services, and the Trustee shall be entitled to be reimbursed for such payments pursuant to Section 8.03 hereof. Section 8.05. Notice to Rating Agencies. The Trustee hereby agrees that if at any time (a) the City redeems any portion of the Bonds Outstanding hereunder prior to their Maturity Date, (b) the City provides for the payment of any portion of the Bonds pursuant to Section 6.01, (c) a successor Trustee is appointed, (d) any supplement to this Indenture shall become effective, or any party thereto shall waive any provision of this Indenture, or (e) any other information that a Rating Agency may reasonably request in order to maintain the ratings on the Bonds, then, in each case, the Trustee shall give notice thereof to each Rating Agency then maintaining a rating on the Bonds. Any notice given to a Rating Agency hereunder shall be mailed by first class mail as follows: [Insert addresses of Rating Agencies rating the Bonds] Section 8.06. Qualification of Trustee. The Trustee hereunder shall be a bank, trust company or national banking association having the powers of a trust company doing business and having a corporate trust office in the City of Chicago, Illinois. Section 8.07. Responsibilities of Trustee, (a) The recitals of fact herein and in the Bonds shall be taken as the statements of the City and the Trustee assumes no responsibility for the correctness ofthe same. The Trustee makes no representations as to the validity or sufficiency of this Indenture or any Supplemental Indenture or of any Bonds issued hereunder or thereunder -26- or in respect of the security afforded by this Indenture or any Supplemental Indenture and the Trustee shall not incur any responsibility in respect thereof. The Trustee shall, however, be responsible for its representation contained in its certificate of authentication on the Bonds. The Trustee shall not be under any responsibility or duty with respect to the issuance of the Bonds for value or the application of the proceeds thereof except to the extent such proceeds are paid to the Trustee in its capacity as Trustee, or the application of any moneys paid lo ihe City or others in accordance with this Indenture or any Supplemental Indenture. The Trustee shall not be under any obligation or duty to perform any act that would involve it in expense or liability or to institute or defend any action or suit in respect hereof, or to advance any of its own moneys, unless properly indemnified. Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this Section, the Trustee shall not be liable in connection with the performance of its duties hereunder except for its own negligence or willful misconduct or that of its agents. (b) The Trustee, prior to the occurrence of an Event of Default and after the remedy of all Events of Default that may have occurred, undertakes to perform such duties and only such duties as are specifically set forth in this Indenture and each Supplemental Indenture. In case an Event of Default has occurred and has not been remedied, the Trustee shall exercise such of the rights and powers vested in it by law, this Indenture and each Supplemental Indenture and shall use the same degree of care and skill in their exercise as a prudent person would exercise or use under the circumstances in the conduct of his or her own affairs. Any provision of this Indenture and any Supplemental Indenture and any Supplemental Indenture relating to action taken or so to be taken by the Trustee or to evidence upon which the Trustee may rely shall be subject to the provisions of this Section. Section 8.08. Funds Held in Trust and Security Therefor. Any moneys held by the Trustee, as such, at any time pursuant to the terms of this Indenture or any Supplemental Indenture shall be and hereby are assigned, transferred and set over unto the Trustee in trust for the purposes and upon the terms and conditions of this Indenture or any Supplemental Indenture. Subject to the terms of this Indenture concerning Permitted Investments, all moneys (not including securities) held by the Trustee, as such, may be deposited by the Trustee in its banking department, or with such other banks, trust companies, or national banking associations, each having a place of business in the City of Chicago, Illinois, as may be designated by the City and approved by the Trustee. No such funds shall be deposited with any bank, trust company or national banking association, other than the Trustee, in an amount exceeding 25 percent of the amount which an officer of such bank, trust company or national banking association shall certify to the Trustee and the City as the combined capital, surplus and undivided profits of such bank, trust company or national banking association. No such funds shall be deposited or remain on deposit with any bank, trust company or national banking association in excess ofthe amount insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, unless (a) such bank, trust company or national banking association shall have deposited in trust with the trust department ofthe Trustee or with a Federal Reserve Bank or branch or, with the written approval of the Trustee and the City, pledged to some other bank, trust company or national banking association, for the benefit of the City and the appropriate fund, account, subfund or subaccount, as collateral security for the moneys deposited, Qualified Collateral having a current market value (exclusive of accrued interest) at least equal to 110 percent of the amount of such moneys, or (b) in lieu ofsuch collateral security as lo all or any part of such moneys, there shall have been deposited in trust -27- with the trust department of the Trustee, for the benefit of the City and the appropriate fund, account, subfund or subaccount, and remain in full force and effect as security for such moneys or part thereof, the indemnifying bond or bonds ofa surety company or companies qualified as surety for deposits of funds of the United States of America and qualified to transact business in the State in a sum at least equal to the amount of such moneys or part thereof. The Trustee shall allow and credit interest on any such moneys held by it at such rate as it customarily allows upon similar moneys of similar size and under similar conditions or as required by law. Interest in respect of moneys or on securities in any fund, account, subfund or subaccount shall be credited in each case to the fund, account, subfund or subaccount in which such moneys or securities are held. Section 8.09. Evidence on which Trustee May Act. The Trustee shall be protected in acting upon any notice, resolution, request, consent, order, certificate, report, opinion, bond or other paper or document believed by it to be genuine, and to have been signed or presented by the proper party or parties. The Trustee may consult with counsel, who may or may not be counsel to the City, and the opinion of such counsel shall be full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken or suffered by it hereunder in good faith and in accordance therewith. Whenever the Trustee shall deem it necessary or desirable that a matter be proved or established prior to taking or suffering any action hereunder, including payment of moneys out of any fund or account, such matter (unless other evidence in respect thereof be herein specifically prescribed) may be deemed to be conclusively proved and established by a Certificate, and such Certificate shall be full warrant for any action taken or suffered in good faith under the provisions of this Indenture upon the faith thereof, but in its discretion the Trustee may in lieu thereof accept other evidence of such fact or matter or may require such further or additional evidence as to it may seem reasonable. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein or therein, any request, order, notice or other direction required or permitted to be furnished pursuant to any provision hereof or thereof by the City to the Trustee shall be sufficiently executed if executed in the name ofthe City by an Authorized Officer. Section 8.10. Permitted Acts and Functions. The Trustee may become the Owner of any Bonds, with the same rights it would have if it were not the Trustee. To the extent permitted by law, the Trustee may act as depositary for, and permit any of its officers or directors to act as a member of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect the rights of the Owners of Bonds or to effect or aid in any reorganization growing out of the enforcement of the Bonds or this Indenture, whether or not any such committee shall represent the Owners of a majority in principal amount of the Bonds then Outstanding. Section 8.11. Resignation. The Trustee may at any time resign and be discharged of its duties and obligations created by this Indenture by giving not fewer than 60 days' written notice to the City and mailing notice thereof, to the owners of Bonds at their addresses shown on the registration books kept by the Trustee within 20 days after the giving of such written notice. Such resignation shall take effect upon the appointment and acceptance of appointment of a successor by the City or the Owners of Bonds as herein provided. Section 8.12. Removal. The Trustee may be removed at any time by the Owners of a majority in principal amount of the Bonds then Outstanding, excluding any Bonds held by or for -28- the account of the City, by an instrument or concurrent instruments in writing signed and duly acknowledged by such Owners of Bonds or by their attorneys duly authorized in writing and delivered to the City. Copies of each such instrument shall be delivered by the City to the Trustee and any successor. The City may remove the Trustee at any time, except during the existence of an Event of Default, for such cause (or upon 30 days' notice for any reason) as shall be determined in the sole discretion of the City by filing with the Trustee an instrument signed by an Authorized Officer and by mailing notice thereof to the Bank and to the Owners of Bonds at their addresses shown on the registration books kept by the Trustee. Any removal of the Trustee shall take effect upon the appointment and acceptance of appointment of a successor Trustee. Section 8.13. Appointment of Successor. In case at any time the Trustee shall resign or shall be removed or shall become incapable of acting, or shall be adjudged a bankrupt or insolvent, or if a receiver, liquidator or conservator of the Trustee or of its property shall be appointed, or if any public officer shall take charge or control of the Trustee or of its property or affairs, a successor may be appointed by the Owners of a majority in principal amount of the Bonds then Outstanding, excluding any Bonds held by or for the account of the City, by an instrument or concurrent instruments in writing signed by such Owners or their attorneys duly authorized in writing and delivered to such successor Trustee, notification thereof being given to the City and the predecessor Trustee. Pending such appointment, the City shall forthwith appoint a Trustee to fill such vacancy until a successor Trustee (if any) shall be appointed by the Owners of Bonds as herein authorized. The City shall mail notice to Owners of Bonds of any such appointment within 20 days after such appointment. Any successor Trustee appointed by the City shall, immediately and without further act, be superseded by a Trustee appointed by the Owners of Bonds. If in a proper case no appointment of a successor Trustee shall be made pursuant to the foregoing provisions of this Section within 45 days after the Trustee shall have given to the City written notice of resignation as provided in Section 8.11 hereof or after the occurrence of any other event requiring or authorizing such appointment, the Trustee, any Owner of Bonds may apply to any court of competent jurisdiction to appoint a successor. Said court may thereupon, after such notice, if any, as said court may deem proper and prescribe, appoint such successor Trustee. Any Trustee appointed under the provisions of this Section shall be a bank, trust company or national banking association, in any such case having corporate trust powers, doing business and having a corporate trust office in the City. Section 8.14. Transfer of Rights and Property to Successor. Any successor Trustee appointed under this Indenture shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to its predecessor Trustee, and also to the City, a written instrument of acceptance respecting such appointment, and thereupon such successor Trustee, without any further act, deed or conveyance, shall become fully vested with all moneys, estates, properties, rights, powers, duties and obligations of such predecessor Trustee, with like effect as if originally named as Trustee; but the Trustee ceasing to act shall nevertheless, on the request of the City, or of the successor Trustee, execute, acknowledge and deliver such instruments of conveyance and further assurance and do such other things as may reasonably be required for more fully and certainly vesting and confirming in such successor Trustee all the right, title and interest of the predecessor Trustee in and to any property held by it under this Indenture, and shall pay over, assign and deliver to the successor Trustee any money or other property subject to the trusts and conditions herein set forth. Should -29- any deed, conveyance or instrument in writing from the City be required by such successor Trustee for more fully and certainly vesting in and confirming to such successor Trustee any such estates, rights, powers and duties, any and all such deeds, conveyances and instruments in writing shall, on request, and so far as may be authorized by law, be executed, acknowledged and delivered by the City. Section 8.15. Merger or Consolidation. Any company into which the Trustee may be merged or converted or wilh which it may be consolidated or any company resulting from any merger, conversion or consolidation to which it shall be a party or any company to which the Trustee may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its corporate trust business, provided such company shall be a bank, trust company or national banking association which is qualified to be a successor to the Trustee under Section 8.13 hereof and shall be authorized by law to perform all the duties imposed upon it by this Indenture, shall be the successor to the Trustee without the execution or filing of any paper or the performance of any further act. Section 8.16. Adoption of Authentication. In case any of the Bonds contemplated to be issued under this Indenture shall have been authenticated but not delivered, any successor Trustee may adopt the certificate of authentication of any predecessor Trustee so authenticating such Bonds and deliver such Bonds so authenticated, and in case any of the said Bonds shall not have been authenticated, any successor Trustee may authenticate such Bonds in the name of the predecessor Trustee, or in the name of the successor Trustee, and in all such cases such certificate shall have the full force which it is anywhere in the Bonds or in this Indenture provided that the certificate of the Trustee shall have. Section 8.17. Evidence of Signatures of Owners and Ownership of Bonds, (a) Any request, consent or other instrument which this Indenture may require or permit to be signed and executed by the Owners of Bonds may be in one or more instruments of similar tenor, and shall be signed or executed by such Owners in person or by their attorneys appointed in writing. Proof of (i) the execution of any such instrument, or of an instrument appointing any such attorney, or (ii) the ownership by any person of the Bonds, shall be sufficient for any purpose of this Indenture (except as otherwise herein expressly provided) if made in the following manner, but the Trustee may nevertheless in its discretion require further or other proof in cases where it deems the same desirable: The fact and date of the execution by any Owner or his attorney of such instrument may be proved by the certificate, which need not be acknowledged or verified, of an officer of a bank or trust company satisfactory to the Trustee or of any notary public or other officer authorized to take acknowledgments of deeds to be recorded in the jurisdiction in which he purports to act, that the person signing such request or other instrument acknowledged to him the execution thereof, or by an affidavit of a witness of such execution, duly sworn to before such notary public or other officer. The authority of the person or persons executing any such instrument on behalf of a corporate Owner of Bonds may be established without further proof if such instrument is signed by a person purporting to be the president or vice president of such -30- corporation with a corporate seal affixed and attested by a person purporting to be its secretary or an assistant secretary. (b) The ownership of Bonds and the amount, numbers and other identification, and date of ownership of the same shall be proved by the Bond Register. Any request, consent or vote of the Owner of any Bond shall bind all future Owners of such Bond in respect of anything done or suffered to be done by the City or the Trustee in accordance therewith. Section 8.18. Preservation and Inspection of Documents. All documents received by the Trustee under the provisions of this Indenture shall be retained in its possession and shall be subject at all reasonable times to the inspection of the City and any Owner of Bonds and their agents and their representatives, any of whom may make copies thereof. Article IX Supplemental Indenture Section 9.01. Supplemental Indenture Effective Upon Execution by the Trustee. For any one or more ofthe following purposes and the purposes enumerated in Section 9.04 hereof, and at any time or from time to time, a Supplemental Indenture may be authorized by an ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City, which, upon the filing with the Trustee of a copy of such ordinance certified by the City Clerk and the execution and delivery of such Supplemental Indenture by the City and the Trustee, shall be fully effective in accordance with its terms and not subject to consent by the Registered Owners of the Bonds: to add to the covenants and agreements of the City in this Indenture other covenants and agreements to be observed by the City which are not contrary to or inconsistent with this Indenture as theretofore in effect; to add to the limitations and restrictions in this Indenture other limitations and restrictions to be observed by the City which are not contrary to or inconsistent with this Indenture as theretofore in effect; to surrender any right, power or privilege reserved to or conferred upon the City by the terms of this Indenture, but only ifthe surrender of such right, power or privilege is not contrary to or inconsistent with the covenants and agreements of the City contained in this Indenture; to confirm, as further assurance, the pledge herein, and the subjection of, additional properties, taxes or other collateral to any lien, claim or pledge created or to be created by, this Indenture; to cure any ambiguity, supply any omission, or cure or correct any defect or inconsistent provision in this Indenture; -31- to insert such provisions clarifying matters or questions arising under this Indenture as are necessary or desirable and are not contrary to or inconsistent with this Indenture as theretofore in effect; or to provide additional duties ofthe Trustee under this Indenture. Section 9.02. Supplemental Indentures Effective With Consent of Owners of Bonds. At any time or from time to time, a Supplemental Indenture may be authorized by an ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City, subject to consent by the Owners of Bonds in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Article, which Supplemental Indenture, upon the fding with the Trustee of a copy of such ordinance certified by the City Clerk, upon compliance with the provisions of this Article, and upon execution and delivery of such Supplemental Indenture by the City and the Trustee, shall become fully effective in accordance with its terms. Section 9.03. General Provisions, (a) This Indenture shall not be modified or amended in any respect except as provided in and in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Article. Nothing in this Article shall affect or limit the right or obligation of the City to adopt, make, do, execute, acknowledge or deliver any ordinance, resolution, act or other instrument pursuant to the provisions of this Article or the right or obligation of the City to execute and deliver to the Trustee any instrument which elsewhere in this Indenture it is provided shall be delivered to the Trustee. Any ordinance authorizing a Supplemental Indenture referred to and permitted or authorized by Section 9.01 or 9.04 hereof may be adopted by the City Council of the City without the consent of any of the Owners of Bonds, but such Supplemental Indenture shall be executed and delivered by the City and the Trustee and shall become effective only on the conditions, to the extent and at the time provided in this Article. Every Supplemental Indenture delivered to the Trustee for execution shall be accompanied by an opinion of counsel stating that such Supplemental Indenture has been duly and lawfully authorized by the City Council of the City and executed by the City in accordance with the provisions of this Indenture, is authorized or permitted by this Indenture, and will, when executed and delivered by the Trustee, be valid and binding upon the City and enforceable in accordance with its terms. The Trustee is hereby authorized to enter into, execute and deliver any Supplemental Indenture referred to and permitted or authorized by this Article and to make all further agreements and stipulations which may be therein contained, and the Trustee, in taking such action, shall be fully protected in relying on an opinion of counsel that such Supplemental Indenture is authorized or permitted by the provisions of this Indenture. No Supplemental Indenture shall change or modify any of the rights or obligations ofthe Trustee without its written assent thereto. No Supplemental Indenture shall take effect unless and until there has been delivered to the Trustee an Opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that such Supplemental Indenture does nol adversely affect the exclusion from gross income for federal income lax purposes to which interest on the Bonds would otherwise be entitled. Section 9.04. Additional Matters. Additionally, this Indenture may, without the consent of, or notice to, any ofthe Bondholders, be supplemented and amended, in such manner as shall not be inconsistent with the terms and provisions hereof, for any one or more of the following purposes: to provide for certificated Bonds; and to secure or maintain ratings from any Rating Agency in the highest long term debt rating category, of such Rating Agency which are available for the Bonds, which changes will not restrict, limit or reduce the obligation of the City to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds as provided in this Indenture or otherwise adversely affect the Registered Owners of the Bonds under this Indenture. Section 9.05. Mailing of Notice of Amendment. Any provision in this Article for the mailing of a notice or other paper to owners of Bonds shall be fully complied with if it is mailed postage prepaid only (i) to each Registered Owner of then Outstanding Bonds at his address, if any, appearing upon the registration books maintained by the City at the Designated Corporate Trust Office of the Trustee, and (ii) to the Trustee. Section 9.06. Powers of Amendment. Any modification or amendment of this Indenture or of the rights and obligations of the City and of the Owners of the Bonds, in particular, which requires the consent of the Bondholders, may be made by a Supplemental Indenture, with the written consent given as provided in Section 9.07, (a) of the Owners of a majority in principal amount of the Bonds Outstanding at the time such consent is given, or (b) in case less than all of the then Outstanding Bonds are affected by the modification or amendment, of the Owners of a majority in principal amount of the then Outstanding Bonds so affected. No such modification or amendment shall permit a change in the terms of redemption or maturity of the principal of any Outstanding Bonds or of any installment of interest thereon or a reduction in the principal amount or the Redemption Price thereof or in the rate of interest thereon, or in terms of purchase or the purchase price thereof, without the consent ofthe owner of such Bonds, or shall reduce the percentages or otherwise affect the classes of Bonds the consent of the owners of which is required to effect any such modification or amendment, or shall change or modify any of the rights or obligations of the Trustee without its written assent thereto. For the purposes of this Section, a Bond shall be deemed to be affected by a modification or amendment of this Indenture if the same adversely affects or diminishes the rights ofthe owners of such Bond. Section 9.07. Consent of Owners of Bonds, (a) The City may at any time authorize a Supplemental Indenture making a modification or amendment permitted by the provisions of Section 9.06, to take effect when and as provided in this Section. A copy of such Supplemental Indenture (or brief summary thereof or reference thereto in form approved by the Trustee), together with a request to the Owners of the Bonds for their consent thereto in form satisfactory to the Trustee, shall be mailed by the City to the Owners of the Bonds (but failure to mail such copy and request shall not affect the validity of the Supplemental Indenture when consented to as -33- in this Section provided). Such Supplemental Indenture shall not be effective unless and until, and shall take effect in accordance with its terms when, (i) there shall have been filed with the Trustee (1) the written consents of Owners of the percentages of Outstanding Bonds specified in Section 9.06 and (2) an opinion of counsel stating that such Supplemental Indenture has been duly and lawfully executed and delivered by the City and the Trustee in accordance with the provisions of this Indenture, is authorized or permitted hereby and is valid and binding upon the City and enforceable in accordance with its terms upon its becoming effective as in this Section provided, and (ii) a notice shall have been mailed as hereinafter in this Section provided. The consent of an Owner of Bonds to any modification or amendment shall be effective only if accompanied by proof of the Ownership, at the date of such consent, of the Bonds with respect to which such consent is given, which proof shall be such as is permitted by Section 8.17. A certificate or certificates signed by the Trustee that it has examined such proof and that such proof is sufficient in accordance with Section 8.17 shall be conclusive that the consents have been given by the Owners of the Bonds described in such certificate or certificates. Any such consent shall be binding upon the Owner of the Bonds giving such consent and upon any subsequent Owner of such Bonds and of any Bonds issued in exchange therefor (whether or not such subsequent Owner thereof has notice thereof) unless such consent is revoked in writing by the Owner of such Bonds giving such consent or a subsequent Owner thereof by filing such revocation with the Trustee, prior to the time when the written statement of the Trustee hereinafter provided for in this Section is filed. The fact that a consent has not been revoked may likewise be proved by a certificate of the Trustee to the effect that no revocation thereof is on file with the Trustee. At any time after the Owners ofthe required percentages of Bonds shall have filed their consents to the Supplemental Indenture, the Trustee shall make and file with the City a written statement that the Owners of such required percentages of Bonds have filed such consents. Such written statement shall be conclusive that such consents have been so filed. At any time thereafter notice, stating in substance that the Supplemental Indenture (which may be referred to as a Supplemental Indenture entered into by the City and the Trustee as of a stated date, a copy of which is on file with the Trustee) has been consented to by the Owners of the required percentages of Bonds and will be effective as provided in this Section, shall be given to Owners by the Trustee by mailing such notice to the Owners of the Bonds and the Bank (but failure to mail such notice shall not prevent such Supplemental Indenture from becoming effective and binding as provided in this Section). The Trustee shall file with the City proof of the mailing of such notice. A record, consisting of the papers required or permitted by this Section to be filed with the Trustee, shall be proof of the matters therein stated. Such Supplemental Indenture making such amendment or modification shall be deemed conclusively binding upon the Trustee and the Owners of all Bonds at the expiration of 40 days after the filing with the Trustee of proof of the mailing of such last mentioned notice, except in the event of a final decree of a court of competent jurisdiction setting aside such Supplemental Indenture in a legal action or equitable proceeding for such purpose commenced within such 40-day period; except that the Trustee and the City, during such 40-day period and any such further period during which any such action or proceeding may be pending, shall be entitled in their absolute discretion to take such action, or to refrain from taking such action, with respect to such Supplemental Indenture as they may deem expedient. -34- Section 9.08. Modifications by Unanimous Consent. The terms and provisions of this Indenture and the rights and obligations of the City and of the Owners of the Bonds hereunder may be modified or amended in any respect upon the consent of the Owners of all the then Outstanding Bonds to the execution and delivery of such Supplemental Indenture, such consent to be given as provided in Section 9.07 except that no notice to the Owners ofthe Bonds shall be required; but no such modification or amendment shall change or modify any of the rights or obligations ofthe Trustee without its written assent thereto. Section 9.09. Exclusion of Bonds. Bonds owned by or for the account of the City shall not be deemed Outstanding for the purpose of consent or other action or any calculation of Outstanding Bonds provided for in this Article, and the City shall not be entitled with respect to such Bonds to give any consent or take any other action provided for in this Article. At the time of any consent or other action taken under this Article, the City shall furnish the Trustee with a Certificate upon which the Trustee may rely, describing all Bonds so to be excluded. Section 9.10. Notation on Bonds. Bonds authenticated and delivered after the effective date of any action taken as in this Article provided may, and, if the Trustee so determines, shall, bear a notation by endorsement or otherwise in form approved by the City and the Trustee as to such action, and in that case upon demand of the Owner of any Bond Outstanding at such effective date and presentation of his Bond for that purpose at the Designated Corporate Trust Office ofthe Trustee or upon any exchange or registration of transfer of any Bond Outstanding at such effective date, suitable notation shall be made on such Bond or upon any Bond issued upon any such exchange or registration of transfer by the Trustee as to any such action. If the City or the Trustee shall so determine, new Bonds so modified as in the opinion of the Trustee and the City to conform to such action shall be prepared, authenticated and delivered, and upon demand of the Owner of any Bond then Outstanding shall be exchanged, without cost to such Owner, for Bonds of the same maturity upon surrender of such Bond. Article X Miscellaneous Section 10.01. Severability. If any provision of this Indenture shall be held or deemed to be, or shall in fact be, illegal, inoperative or unenforceable, the same shall not affect any other provision or provisions herein contained or render the same invalid, inoperative or unenforceable to any extent whatever. Section 10.02. Payments Due on Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays. Ifthe date for making any payment, or the last date for the performance of any act or the exercise of any right, as provided in this Indenture, shall not be a Business Day, such payment may be made, act performed or right exercised on the next Business Day with the same force and effect as if done on the nominal date provided in this Indenture, and no interest shall accrue for the period after such nominal date. -35- Section 10.03. Counterparts. This Indenture may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. Section 10.04. Rules of Interpretation. Unless expressly indicated otherwise, references to Sections or Articles are to be construed as references to Sections or Articles of this instrument as originally executed. Use of the words "herein," "hereby," "hereunder," "hereof, "hereinbefore," "hereinafter" and other equivalent words refer to this Indenture and not solely to the particular portion in which any such word is used. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Indenture and the Bond Ordinance (including in the form of Bond attached hereto as Exhibit A), the terms of this Indenture shall be deemed to control. Section 10.05. Captions. The captions and headings in this Indenture are for convenience only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of any provisions or Sections of this Indenture. [Signatures Appear on Following Page] -36- In Witness Whereof, the City has caused these presents to be executed in its name and with its official seal hereunto affixed and attested by its duly authorized officials: and to evidence its acceptance of the trusts hereby created, the Trustee has caused these presents to be executed in its corporate name and with its corporate seal hereunto affixed and attested by its duly authorized officers, on the date first above written. City of Chicago By: [Seal] Attest: By: City Clerk as Trustee By: Name: Authorized Signatory [Signature Page - Trust Indenture] Exhibit A Form of Bond Registered No. United States of America State of Illinois City of Chicago General Obligation Bond Series 2015 See Reverse Side for Additional Provisions Interest Rate: Maturity Date: January 1,20_ Registered Owner: Principal Amount: The City of Chicago (the '"City") hereby acknowledges itself to owe and for value received promises to pay to the Registered Owner identified above, or registered assigns as hereinafter provided, on the Maturity Date identified above, the Principal Amount identified above and to pay interest (computed on the basis ofa 360-day year of twelve 30-day months) on such Principal Amount from the later of the date of this Bond or the most recent interest payment date to which interest has been paid at the Interest Rate per annum set forth above on January 1 and July 1 of each year commencing 1, 20 , until said Principal Amount is paid. Principal of this Bond and redemption premium, if any, shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America upon presentation and surrender at the designated corporate trust office of , Chicago, Illinois, as trustee, bond registrar and paying agent (the "Trustee"). Payment of the installments of interest shall be made to the Registered Owner hereof as shown on the registration books of the City maintained by the Trustee at the close of business on the 15th day of the month next preceding each interest payment date and shall be paid by check or draft of the Trustee mailed to the address of such Registered Owner as it appears on such registration books or at such other address furnished in writing by such Registered Owner to the Trustee or, at the option of any Registered Owner of $1,000,000 or more in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, by wire transfer of immediately available funds to such bank in the continental United States of America as the Registered Owner hereof shall request in writing to the Trustee. A-1 Reference is hereby made to the further provisions of this Bond set forth on the reverse hereof and such further provisions shall for all purposes have the same effect as if set forth at this place. It is hereby certified and recited that all conditions, acts and things required by law to exist or to be done precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond did exist, have happened, been done and performed in regular and due form and time as required by law; that the indebtedness of the City, including the issue of Bonds of which this is one, does not exceed any limitation imposed by law; and that provision has been made for the collection of a direct annual tax sufficient to pay the interest hereon as it falls due and also to pay and discharge the principal hereof at maturity. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose until the certificate of authentication hereon shall have been signed by the Trustee. In Witness Whereof, the City of Chicago by the City Council has caused its corporate seal to be imprinted by facsimile hereon and this Bond to be signed by the duly authorized facsimile signature of the Mayor and attested by the facsimile signature of the City Clerk, all as of the Dated Date identified above. (Facsimile Signature) Mayor City of Chicago Attest: (Facsimile Signature) City Clerk City of Chicago [Seal] Date of Authentication: Certificate of Authentication This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the within-mentioned Bond Ordinance and Indenture and is one of the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015_, of the City of Chicago. By: (Manual Signature) Authorized Officer A-2 [Form of Bond โ Reverse SideJ City of Chicago General Obligation Bond Series 2015_ For the prompt payment of this Bond, both principal and interest, as aforesaid, as the same become duc, and for the levy of taxes sufficient for that purpose, the full faith, credit and resources of the City are hereby irrevocably pledged. This Bond is one of a series of Bonds aggregating the principal amount of $ issued pursuant to issued pursuant to, under authority of and in full compliance with the Constitution and laws of the State of Illinois, particularly Article VII, Section 6(a) of the 1970 Constitution ofthe State of Illinois and an Ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City on , 2015 (the "Bond Ordinance"), and executed under a Trust Indenture securing the City of Chicago General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015_, dated , 2015 (the "Indenture") from the City to the Trustee, for the purposes of (i) paying costs of the Debt Management Purposes described in the Bond Ordinance and (ii) paying expenses incidental to the issuance of the Bonds. The Bonds maturing on or after January 1, , are redeemable prior to maturity at the option of the City, in whole or in part on any date on or after 1, , and if less than all of the outstanding Bonds are to be redeemed, the Bonds to be called shall be called from such maturities and interest rates as shall be determined by the City and if less than all of the Bonds of a single maturity and the same interest rate are to be redeemed then [by lot] [pro-rata] within such maturity and interest rate in the manner hereinafter provided, the Bonds to be redeemed at the redemption prices (being expressed as a percentage of the principal amount) set forth below, plus accrued interest to the date of redemption: Dates of Redemption Redemption Price The Bonds maturing on January 1, , are subject to mandatory redemption prior to maturity on January 1 of the years to , inclusive, and the Bonds maturing on January 1, , are subject to mandatory redemption prior to maturity on January 1 of the years to , inclusive, in each case at par and accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption. [Redemption by lot] In the event of the redemption of less than all the Bonds of like maturity and interest rate, the aggregate principal amount thereof to be redeemed shall be $ ,000 or an integral multiple thereof, and the Trustee shall assign to each Bond of such maturity and interest rate a distinctive number for each $ ,000 principal amount of such Bond and shall select by lot from the numbers so assigned as many numbers as, at $ ,000 for each number, shall equal the principal amount of such Bonds to be redeemed. The Bonds to be redeemed shall be the Bonds to which were assigned numbers so selected; provided that only A-3 i I I f I I I I so much ofthe principal amount of each Bond shall be redeemed as shall equal $ ,000 for each number assigned to it and so selected. [Redemption pro-rata] In the event of the redemption of less than all of the Bonds of like maturity and interest rate, the Bonds to be redeemed will be selected pro-rata in the manner determined pursuant to the Indenture. Notice of any such redemption shall be sent by first class mail not less than 30 days nor more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the Registered Owner of each Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books of the City maintained by the Trustee or at such other address as is furnished in writing by such Registered Owner to the Trustee; provided that the failure to mail any such notice or any defect therein as to any Bond shall not affect the validity of the proceedings for the redemption of any other Bond. When so called for redemption, this Bond shall cease to bear interest on the specified redemption date, provided that funds for redemption are on deposit at the place of payment at that time, and shall not be deemed to be outstanding. This Bond is transferable by the Registered Owner hereof in person or by its attorney duly authorized in writing at the designated corporate trust office of the Trustee in Chicago, Illinois, but only in the manner, subject to the limitations and upon payment of the charges provided in the Indenture, and upon surrender and cancellation of this Bond. Upon such transfer a new Bond or Bonds of authorized denominations, of the same interest rate, series and maturity and for the same aggregate principal amount will be issued to the transferee in exchange therefor. The Trustee shall not be required to transfer or exchange this Bond during the period commencing on the Record Date next preceding any Interest Payment Date for this Bond and ending on such Interest Payment Date, or to transfer or exchange such Bond (A) after notice calling this Bond for redemption has been mailed, or (B) during a period of 15 days next preceding mailing of a notice of redemption of this Bond. The Bonds are issued in fully registered form in the denomination of $ ,000 each or authorized integral multiples thereof. This Bond may be exchanged at the designated corporate trust office of the Trustee for a like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of the same interest rate, series and maturity of other authorized denominations, upon the terms set forth in the Indenture. The City and the Trustee may deem and treat the Registered Owner hereof as the absolute owner hereof for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of principal hereof and interest due hereon and redemption premium, if any, and for all other purposes and neither the City nor the Trustee shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. A-4 (Assignment) For Value Received, the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers unto (Name and Address of Assignee) the within Bond and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the said Bond on the books kept for registration thereof with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Signature guaranteed: Notice: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name of the Registered Owner as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever. A-5 available in her office for public inspection and distribution to members of the public who may wish to avail themselves of a copy of this Ordinance. Section 24. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption, approval by the Mayor and publication as provided herein. t . -35- CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT SECTION I -- GENERAL INFORMATION A. Legal name ofthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC d/b/a Morgan Stanley & Company LLC Check ONE of the following three boxes: Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is: [x] the Applicant OR [] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest: OR 3. [ ] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control: B. Business address of the Disclosing Party: 440 S. LaSalle Street, One Financial Place, 37th Floor Chicago, IL 60605 C Telephone' 312-706-4058 FaX' 312-777-2319 Email" William-DaieySrnorganstanley.com Name of contact person: william Dal6y r ' i Federal Employer Identification No. (ifyou have one): i __ โโข*v Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable): General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015 G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following: Specification # and Contract # Page 1 of 13 SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY Person Publicly registered business corporation Privately held business corporation Sole proprietorship General partnership Limited partnership Trust |x] Limited liability company [ ] Limited liability partnership [ ] Joint venture [ ] Not-for-profit corporation (Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Other (please specify) 2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: Delaware 3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity? p] Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY: 1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors ofthe entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s). If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management of the Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf. Name Title See EXHIBIT A 2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture, Page 2 of 13 interest of a member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest of a beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure. Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the Disclosing Party Morgan Stanley 1585 Broadway 100% Domestic Holdings, Inc. New York, NY 10036 SECTION III -- BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed? [ J Yes [x] No If yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s): SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature ofthe relationship, and the total amount ofthe fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll. "Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action. If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure. Page 3 of 13 Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE: to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is not an acceptable response. Mayer Brown 71 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Underwriters' Counsel TATTtTcipatea to T5e retained) $75,000 (Add sheets if necessary) * AH underwriters are paying their share of underwriters' counsel fees [ ] Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term. Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction? [ ] Yes [ ] No [k] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party. If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement? [ ] Yes [ ] No FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS 1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee ofthe City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below. Page 4 of 13 The Disclosing Parly and, ifthe Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B. 1. of this EDS: are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government; have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted ofa criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property; are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V; have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government. The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern: the Disclosing Party; any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties"); any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibility ofa business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity; any responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents"). Page 5 of 13 Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity of a Contractor during the five years before the date ofsuch Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter: bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee ofthe City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity; agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance). Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of stale or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating. Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List. The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code. If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below: See EXHIBIT B in lieu of response to items above Page 6 of 13 If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements. 8. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). None 9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient. Based on a review of Firm expenditures records, and to the best of our knowledge, information and belief, the Disclosing Party has not given a gift to any City of Chicago official or employee. C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one) fx] is [ ] is not a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code. If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges: "We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate ofa predatory lender may result in the loss ofthe privilege of doing business with the City." Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary): Page 7 of 13 If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements. D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D. In accordance with Section 2-156-110 ofthe Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter? [ ] Yes [x] No NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E. Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit ofthe City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D. Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale? [ ] Yes [ ] No If you checked "Yes" to Item D.L, provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest: Name Business Address Nature of Interest 4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee. E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to Page 8 of 13 comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City. _x 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records. 2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records: SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS NOTE: If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. Ifthe Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations ofthe City are not federal funding. A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING 1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary): (If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or ifthe letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.) 2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. Page 9 of 13 The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above. The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities". If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration ofthe Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request. B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY If the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations. Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant? [ ] Yes [ ] No If "Yes," answer the three questions below: Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.) [ ] Yes [ ] No Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements? [ ] Yes [ ] No Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause? [ ] Yes [ ] No If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation: Page 10 of 13 SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that: The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based. The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
Ifthe City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. Ifthe Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 ofthe Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F.l. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent of the City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F.l., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC d/b/a Morgan Stanley & Company LLC
(Print or type name of Disclosing Party)
By: IaJaasv
(Sign here) '
William Daley
(Print or type name of person signing)
Managing Director
(Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date)
at dt>6 /^-. County, ^////io/ 5ยป (state).
Notary Public.
Commission expires:
OFFICIAL SEAL JOANN CLARKSTON NOTARY PU8UC - STATS Of 1LUNCII MY COMMISSION EXftMf 4tt1/1f
Page 12 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as of the date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers ofthe Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B.l.a., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Parly, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers ofthe Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary ofa legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [x] No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name of the legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature of such familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
Exhibit A
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC d/b/a Morgan Stanley & Company LLC Current Appointments
Board Positions
Name 'ffiijfe^r 5>V '?%k'.: Assomull, Mohit Ashok D'Antonio, Stephen H. Kelleher, Thomas Columba Stern, Michael Wipf, Thomas G.
Director Director Director Director Director
Officers
Name โข\::-/-v--~Ar?';vA/.''. :-Kelleher, Thomas Columba Lupetin, Sergio J. Richter, Rose-Anne N. McEvoy, Graeme Russo, David S. Faulkner, John H. Brown, Celeste Mellet
^Position
Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Compliance Officer
Chief Operations Officer
Chief Risk Officer
General Counsel
Treasurer
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [X]No
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [X ] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name ofthe person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address ofthe building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
Exhibit B
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 193-1 For the year ended December 31, 2009 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(l-xaci name of Registrant ;is .specified in irs charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway
(State or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices
including zip code)
Title of eacfi class
36-3145972 (212) 761-4000
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No ) (Registrant's telephone number,
including area code)
Name of exchange on which regisrered
New York Stock Exchange
New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange NYSE Amcx LLC NYSE Area, Inc.
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, $0 01 par value
Depositary Shares, each representing I/1,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series A, $0.01
par value
6 'A% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
6 lA% Capital Secunties of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
5Va% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
6 60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
6.60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
6.45% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
Exchangeable Notes due December 30, 2010; Exchangeable Notes due June 30, 2011
BRIDGES5" due June 15, 2010
Capital Protected Notes due April 20, 2010; Capital Protected Notes due July 20,2010 (2 issuances): Capital Protected Notes due
August 30, 2010; Capital Protected Notes due October 30, 2010, Capital Protected Notes due January 30, 2011; Capital Protected
NYSE Area, Inc.
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
NYSE Area, Inc.
NYSE Amex LLC
NYSE Amcx LLC
NYSE Area, Inc.
NYSE Area, Inc.
NYSE Area, Inc. NYSE Area, Inc. NYSE Area, Inc.
NYSE Area, Inc.
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
Notes due February 20, 2011; Capital Protected Notes duc March 30, 2011 (2 issuances); Capital Protected Notes due June 30, 2011;
Capital Protected Notes due August 20,2011; Capital Protected Notes due October 30, 2011; Capital Protected Notes due
December 30, 2011, Capital Protected Notes duc September 30, 2012
Capital Protected Notes due September 1, 2010
MPSSM due June 15, 2010; MPS due December 30, 2010; MPS due March 30,2012
MPS due December 30, 2010
Stock Participation Notes due September 15, 2010, Stock Participation Notes duc December 30, 2010
BufTered PLUSSM due December 20, 2010. Buffered PLUS due March 20, 2011
PROPELSSM due December 30, 2011 (3 issuances)
Protected Absolute Return Barrier Notes due March 20, 2010; Protected Absolute Return Barrier Notes due July 20, 2010; Protected
Absolute Return Bamer Notes due August 20, 2010; Protected Absolute Return Banicr Notes due March 20, 2011
Strategic Total Return Securities duc July 30, 2011
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances). Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances)
Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities due March 30, 2010, Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities due July 30,
2011; Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Secunties duc January 15,2012
Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities due October 30, 2011
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES [x] NO D Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES ? NO (x)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reporls), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES (x) NO O Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant lo Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (ยง 232 405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes [xj No ?
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [X] Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [X] Accelerated Filer Q
Non-Accelerated Filer Q Smaller reporting company \Zi
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule I2b-2). YES O NO [X]
As of June 30, 2009, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $38,566,093,047. This calculation does not reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of January 31. 2010, there were 1.398.087,044 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0 01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated By Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2010 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of (his Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, in the normal course oi" business, the Company has been named, from time to time, as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and olher 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 issuers that would otherwise be the primary defendants in such cases are bankrupt or in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business including, among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
The Company contests liability and/or the amount of damages as appropriate in each pending matter. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, particularly in cases where claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages or where investigations and proceedings are in the early stages, the Company cannot predict with certainty the loss or range of loss, if any, related to such matters, how or if such matters will be resolved, when they will ultimately be resolved, or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, might be. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such pending matters will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such matters could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular future period depending on, among other things, the level ofthe Company's revenues or income for such period.
Residential Mortgage-Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related issues including collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass through certificates.
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, which is styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. On December 9, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action, which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming the Company and certain present and former senior executives as defendants and asserting claims for violations of the securities laws. The amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., is currently pending in the SDNY. Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Morgan Stanley
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), alleging, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of approximately $17 billion of mortgage pass through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. This case, which was consolidated with an earlier lawsuit and is currently styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litig, is pending in the SDNY. On September 15, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint which defendants have moved to dismiss.
Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained various material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued the securities and mortgage pass through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases relate to issuers that have filed for bankruptcy, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation. In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Washington Mutual, Inc. during 2006 and 2007. The Company underwrote approximately $1.6 billion ofthe principal amount of the offerings at issue. On October 27, 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. The Company underwrote over $200 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. The Company and other defendants have moved to dismiss these claims. In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to the offerings of mortgage pass through certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. The Company underwrote over $2.4 billion of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. The Company and other defendants have moved to dismiss these claims.
Shareholder Derivative Matter. A shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the SDNY during November 2007 asserting claims related in large part to losses caused by certain subprime-related trading positions and related matters. The complaint in that lawsuit, which is styled Steve Staehr, Derivatively on Behalf of Morgan Stanley v. John J. Mack, et ai, was served on the Company on February 15, 2008. On July 16, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which defendants have moved to dismiss. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution, and institution of certain corporate governance reforms.
Auction Rate Securities Matters.
On August 27, 2008, a shareholder derivative complaint, which was styled Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. Mack, et al, was filed in the SDNY. On September 12, 2008, a second complaint, which was styled Thomas v. Mack, et al, was filed in the SDNY. The complaints were substantially similar and named as defendants the members of the Company's Board of Directors as well as certain current and former officers. Morgan Stanley, on whose behalf the suits were purportedly brought, is named as a nominal defendant in each action. The complaints raised claims of breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
Morgan Stanley
I
I
I
amended, related to the Company's sale of auction rate securities ("ARS") over the period from June 20, 2007 to the present. Among other things, the complaints alleged that, over the relevant period, Morgan Stanley's public filings and statements were materially false and misleading in that they failed to disclose the illiquid nature of its ARS inventories and that Morgan Stanley's practices in the sale of ARS exposed it to significant liability for settlements and judgments. The complaints also alleged that during the relevant period certain defendants sold Morgan Stanley's stock while in possession of material non-public information. The complaints sought, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution from the defendants with respect to compensation, benefits and profits obtained, and the institution of certain reforms to Morgan Stanley's internal control functions. On November 24, 2008, the SDNY ordered the consolidation of the two actions. On February 2, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, styled as in re Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. Auction Rate Securities Derivative Litigation. On June 23, 2009, the SDNY granted defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure by plaintiffs to make a pre-Iitigation demand on the Company's Board of Directors. In addition, the SDNY set a schedule for plaintiffs to make such a demand, for the Board of Directors to respond thereto, and for further proceedings before the SDNY, which may include a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
Executive Compensation-Related Matter.
A shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on February 11, 2010 asserting claims for waste, breach of the duty of loyalty and unjust enrichment related to the Company's executive compensation for the fiscal years ended November 30, 2006 and 2007 and the calendar year ended December 31, 2009. The complaint, which is styled Security and Fire Professionals of America Retirement Fund, et al. v. John J. Mack, et. ai, names as defendants the Company's Board of Directors and certain present and former officers and directors. Morgan Stanley, on whose behalf the lawsuit is purportedly being brought, is named as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the total amount of the executive compensation paid for these years was disproportionately large in relation to the Company's performance. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of compensation, benefits and profits, and institution of certain corporate governance reforms.
China Matter.
As disclosed in February 2009, the Company uncovered actions initiated by an employee based in China in an overseas real estate subsidiary that appear to have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company terminated the employee, reported the activity to appropriate authorities and is cooperating with investigations by the United States Department of Justice and the SEC.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
There were no matters submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of the year ended December 31, 2009.
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2010 Commission File Number 1-1 1758
Morgan Stanley
{Exact name of Registrant as specified in iis charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212) 761-4000
(State or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Tirle of each class which registered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, S0.0I par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Prefencd Stock,
Series A, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6 'A% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6 '/53/4% Capital Secunties of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Slock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Exchangeable Noles due June 30, 2011 NYSE Amex LLC
Capital Protected Notes due March 30, 2011 (2 issuances); Capital Protected Notes due June 30, 2011; Capital Protected
Notes duc August 20, 20! 1; Capital Protected Notes due October 30, 2011; Capital Protected Notes duc December 30,
2011; Capital Protected Notes due September 30, 2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
MI'SSM due March 30,2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
Buffered PLUSSM duc March 20, 2011 NYSE Area, Inc.
PROPELSSM due December 30, 2011 (3 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Protected Absolute Return Barrier Notes duc March 20, 2011 NYSE Area, Inc.
Strategic Total Return Securities due July 30, 2011 NYSE Area, Inc.
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities duc July 30, 2011; Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities due
January 15, 2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities due October 30, 2011 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES |x] NO O Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES Q NO [X]
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (I) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES [X| NO ?
Indicale by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (ยง 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period lhat the Registrant was required lo submit and post such files). Yes |xl No f"!
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. g)
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer fx] Accelerated Filer O
Non-Accelerated Filer ? Smaller reporting company ?
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES Q NO [x]
As of June 30, 2010, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $32,227,567,107. This calculation docs not reflect a detennination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of January 31, 2011, there were 1,545,631,781 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2011 annual meeting of shareholders arc incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, including, among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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 condensed 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.
In many proceedings, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount of any loss. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek substantial or indeterminate damages. Numerous issues may need to be resolved, including through potentially lengthy discovery and determination of important factual matters, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings in question, before a loss or additional loss or range of loss or additional loss can be reasonably estimated for any proceeding. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Recently, the level of litigation activity focused on residential mortgage and credit crisis related matters 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 regarding residential mortgages and related securities in the future and, while the Company has identified below certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from residential mortgage claims that have not yet been notified to the Company or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass through certificates. These matters include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's handling of foreclosure related issues, and the Company's compliance with the Service Members Civil Relief Act.
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other
Morgan Stanley
parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, which is styled //; re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's common stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its common stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On December 9, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action, which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming the Company and certain present and former senior executives as defendants and asserting claims for violations of the securities laws. The amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et ai, is currently-pending in the SDNY.-Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), alleging, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of approximately $17 billion of mortgage pass through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. This case, which was consolidated with an earlier lawsuit and is currently styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation, is pending in the SDNY. On August 17, 2010, the court dismissed the claims brought by the lead plaintiff, but gave a different plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. On September 10, 2010, that plaintiff, together with several new plaintiffs, filed a second amended complaint which purports to assert claims against the Company and others on behalf of a class of investors who purchased approximately $4.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates issued in 2006 by seven trusts collectively containing residential mortgage loans. The second amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act, and alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On October 11, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained various material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued the securities and mortgage pass through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-defendants and the
Morgan Stanley
willingness and ability of the issuers (or their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation. In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, relate to issuers (or their affiliates) that have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership.
In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On October 12. 2010, the court issued an order certifying a class of plaintiffs asserting claims under the Securities Act related to three offerings by Washington Mutual Inc. in 2006 and 2007 in which the Company participated as an underwriter. The Company underwrote approximately $1.3 billion of the securities covered by the class certified by the court.
In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. The Company underwrote approximately $232 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On June 5, 2010, the underwriter defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed by the lead plaintiffs.
In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to offerings of mortgage pass through certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. The Company underwrote over $1.4 billion of the principal amount of the offerings originally at issue. On June 21, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint. The Company underwrote approximately $46 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue following the court's June 21, 2010 decision. On May 17, 2010, certain putative plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene in the litigation in order to assert claims related to additional offerings. The Company underwrote approximately $1.2 billion of the principal amount of the additional offerings subject to the motion to intervene. The Company is opposing the motion to intervene.
On December 24, 2009, the Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands filed a purported class action against the Company on behalf of holders of approximately $250 million of AAA rated notes issued by the Libertas III CDO in March 2007. The case is styled Employees' Retirement System of the Government ofthe Virgin Islands v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud and unjust enrichment and alleges that the Company made misrepresentations regarding the AAA ratings of the CDO notes and the credit quality of the collateral held by the Libertas III CDO, and stood to gain if that collateral defaulted. The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief, fees and costs. On March 19, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Shareholder Derivative Matter. On November 15, 2007, a shareholder derivative complaint styled Steve Staehr, Derivatively on Behalf of Morgan Stanley v. John J. Mack, et al. was filed in the SDNY asserting claims related in large part to losses caused by certain subprime-related trading positions and related matters. On July 16, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss on September 19, 2008. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution, and institution of certain corporate governance reforms.
Other Litigation. On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Cheyne Finance (the "Cheyne SIV"). The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime residential mortgage backed securities held by the SIV. On September 2, 2009, the court dismissed all of the claims against the Company except for plaintiffs' claims for common law fraud. On June 15, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 20, 2010, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to replead their aiding and abetting common law fraud claims against the Company, and those claims were added in an amended complaint filed on August 5, 2010. Since the filing of the initial complaint, various additional plaintiffs have been added to
Morgan Stanley
the case. There are currently 14 plaintiffs asserting individual claims related to securities issued by the SIV. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
On January 16, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in an interpleader lawsuit styled U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Barclays Bank PLC and Morgan Stanley Capital Sen'ices Inc., which is pending in the SDNY. The lawsuit relates to credit default swaps between the Company and Tourmaline CDO I LTD ("Tourmaline"), in which Barclays Bank PLC ("Barclays") is the holder of the most senior and controlling class of notes. At issue is whether, pursuant to the terms of the swap agreements, the Company was required to post collateral to Tourmaline, or take any other action, after the Company's credit ratings were downgraded in 2008 by certain ratings agencies. The Company and Barclays have a dispute regarding whether the Company breached any obligations under the swap agreements and, if so, whether any such breaches were cured. The trustee for Tourmaline, interpleader plaintiff U.S. Bank, N.A., has refrained from making any further distribution of Tourmaline's funds pending the resolution of these issues and is seeking a judgment from the court resolving them. On January 11, 2011, the court conducted a bench trial, but has not yet issued its ruling. As of December 31, 2010, the Company believed that it was entitled to receivables from Tourmaline in an amount equal to approximately $273 million.
On September 25, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit styled Citibank, N.A. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International, PLC, which is pending in the SDNY. The lawsuit relates to a credit default swap referencing the Capmark VI CDO, which was structured by Citibank, N.A. ("Citi N.A."). At issue is whether, as part of the swap agreement, Citi N.A. was obligated to obtain the Company's prior written consent before it exercised its rights to liquidate Capmark upon the occurrence of certain contractually-defined credit events. Citi N.A. is seeking approximately $245 million in compensatory damages plus interest and costs. On October 8, 2010, the court issued an order denying Citi N.A.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Company's counterclaim for reformation and granting Citi N.A.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Company's counterclaim for estoppel. The Company moved for summary judgment on December 17, 2010. Citi N.A. opposed the Company's motion and cross moved for summary judgment on January 21, 2011.
On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 28, 2010. The complaint 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action.
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 were filed on June 10, 2010. The complaints 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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On July 12, 2010, defendants removed these actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on December 20, 2010, the cases were remanded to the state court.
On June 10, 2010, the Company was named as a new defendant in a pre-existing purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Rhinebridge pic ("Rhinebridge SIV"). The case is styled King County, Washington, et al. v. 1KB Deutsche Industriebank AG, et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint asserts
Morgan Stanley
I
I
I
claims for common law fraud and aiding and abetting common law fraud and alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime residential mortgage backed securities held by the SIV. On July 15, 2010, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint. That motion was denied on October 29, 2010. The case is pending before the same judge presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV, described above. While reserving their ability to act otherwise, plaintiffs have indicated that they do not currently plan to file a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
On July 9, 2010, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, styled Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of certain of plaintiffs clients and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale of a number of 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 plaintiffs clients by the Company was approximately $242 million. The complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On August 13, 2010, defendants removed this action to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and on September 13, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the state court. On December 28, 2010, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant the motion to remand. The defendants objected to the magistrate's report and recommendation on January 18, 2011.
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribas Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiffs subsidiaries of a number of mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiffs subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On September 8, 2010, defendants removed this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and on October 1, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the state court.
In July 15, 2010, China Industrial Development Bank ("CIDB") filed a complaint against the Company, which is styled China Industrial Development Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. 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 CIDB, and that the Company knew that the assets backing the CDO were of poor quality when it entered into the credit default swap with CIDB. The complaint seeks compensatory damages related to the approximately $228 million that CIDB alleges it has already lost under the credit default swap, rescission of CIDB's obligation to pay an additional $12 million, punitive damages, equitable relief, fees and costs. On September 30,2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed two complaints against the Company and other defendants. One was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois and is styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. The other was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California and is styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. The complaints allege 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 the two actions was approximately $203 million and $75 million respectively. The complaint filed in Illinois raises claims
Morgan Stanley
under Illinois law. The complaint filed in California raises claims under (he federal securities laws, Illinois law and California law. Both complaints seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. The defendants removed both actions to federal court, on November 23, 2010 and November 24, 2010, respectively. On January 18, 2011, (he United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois remanded the Illinois action to the state court. On December 23, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the California action from the United States District Court for the Central District of California to the slate court.
On December 6, 2010, MBIA Insurance Corporation ("MBIA") filed a complaint against the Company related to MBIA's contract to insure approximately $223 million of residential mortgage backed securities related to a second lien residential mortgage backed securitization sponsored by the Company in June 2007. The complaint is styled MBIA Insurance Corporation v. Morgan Stanley, et al. and is pending in New York Supreme Court, Westchester County. The complaint asserts claims for fraud, breach of contract and unjust enrichment and alleges, among other things, that the Company misled MBIA regarding the quality of the loans contained in the securitizalion, that loans contained in the securitization breached various representations and warranties and that the loans have been serviced inadequately. The complaint seeks, among other relief, compensatory and punitive damages, an order requiring the Company to comply with the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents and/or to indemnify MBIA for losses resulting from the Company's alleged breach of the transaction documents, as well as costs, interests and fees. On February 2, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
China Matter.
As disclosed in February 2009, the Company uncovered actions initiated by an employee based in China in an overseas real estate subsidiary that appear to have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company terminated the employee, reported the activity to appropriate authorities and is cooperating with investigations by the United States Department of Justice and the SEC.
Item 4. [Removed and Reserved]
Morgan Stanley
I
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2011 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212) 761-4000
(Stare or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's Telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Title of each class which registered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, S0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing I/1,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Series A, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6 !/4% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6 !/4% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
5 3A% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Capital Protected Notes due September 30, 2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
MPSSM duc March 30, 2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
Market Vectors ETNs duc March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) ... NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley Cushingยฎ MLP High Income Index ETNs duc March 21, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Crude Oil Linked ETNs due July 1, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES [x] NO ?
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES fj NO [x]
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reporls), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for ihe past 90 days. YES (X) NO ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES [x] NO fj
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K. or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. (Check one);
Large Accelerated Filer [x] Accelerated Filer ?
Non-Accelerated Filer ? Smaller reporting company ?
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES O NO [X]
As of June 30, 2011, the aggregate market value ofthe common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $44,205,856,161. This calculation does not reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of January 31, 2012, there were 1,978,634,958 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2012 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, including, among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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.
In many proceedings, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount of any loss. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek substantial or indeterminate damages. 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, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings in question, before a loss or additional loss or range of loss or additional loss can be reasonably estimated for any proceeding. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity focused on residential mortgage and credit crisis related matters 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 regarding residential mortgages and related securities in the future and, while the Company has identified below certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from residential mortgage claims that have not yet been notified to the Company or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS"), collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass through certificates. These matters include, but are not lirnited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's disclosures to investors, and the Company's handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401 (k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other
Morgan Stanley
parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, which is styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's common stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its common stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On December 9, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al, was filed in the SDNY asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants knew or should have known that from January 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008, the plans' investment in Company stock was imprudent given the extraordinary risks faced by the Company and its common stock during that period. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On July 20, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on October 28, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action, which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming the Company and certain present and former senior executives as defendants and asserting claims for violations of the securities laws. The amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., is currently pending in the SDNY. Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 4, 2011, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint with respect to certain of their allegations. On June 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in response to the court's order of April 4, 2011. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), alleging, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of approximately $17 billion of mortgage pass through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. This case, which was consolidated with an earlier lawsuit and is currently styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation, is pending in the SDNY. On August 17, 2010, the court dismissed the claims brought by the lead plaintiff, but gave a different plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. On September 10, 2010, that plaintiff, together with several new plaintiffs, filed a second amended complaint which purported to assert claims against the Company and others on behalf of a class of investors who purchased approximately $4.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates issued in 2006 by seven trusts collectively containing residential mortgage loans. The second amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act, and alleged, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On September 15, 2011, the court granted in
Morgan Stanley
I j
i
part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' request to file another amended complaint. On September 29, 2011, the defendants moved for reconsideration ofa portion ofthe court's decision partially denying the motion to dismiss. On September 30, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint purporting to bring claims on behalf of a class of investors who purchased approximately $2.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates issued in 2006 by five trusts. The defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on October 17, 2011.
Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued or sponsored the securities and mortgage pass through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, relate to issuers or sponsors (or their affiliates) that have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership.
In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. The Company underwrote approximately $232 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On September 23, 2011, a group of underwriter defendants, including the Company, reached an agreement in principle with the class plaintiffs to settle the litigation. On December 15, 2011, the Court presiding over this action issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. The settlement hearing is currently scheduled for April 12, 2012.
In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to offerings of mortgage pass through certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. The Company underwrote over $1.4 billion ofthe principal amount of the offerings originally at issue. On June 21, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint. The Company underwrote approximately $46 million ofthe principal amount ofthe offerings at issue following the court's June 21, 2010 decision. On May 17, 2010, certain putative plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene in the litigation in order to assert claims related to additional offerings. The principal amount of the additional offerings underwritten by the Company is approximately $ 1.2 billion. On June 21, 2011, the Company successfully opposed the motion to add the additional plaintiffs as to the Company. On July 20, 2011 and July 21, 2011, certain of the additional plaintiffs filed appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company is opposing the appeals.
Luther, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, involves claims related to the Company's role as an underwriter of various residential mortgage backed securities offerings issued by affiliates of Countrywide Financial Corporation. The amended complaint includes allegations that the registration statements and the offering documents contained false and misleading statements about the residential mortgage loans backing the securities. The Company underwrote approximately $6.3 billion of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On January 6, 2010, the Court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On May 18, 2011, a California court of appeals reversed the dismissal and reinstated the complaint. On December 19, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On February 3, 2012, defendants moved to stay the case pending resolution of a securities class action brought by the same plaintiffs, styled Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et ai, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Morgan Stanley
Other Litigation. On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Cheyne Finance (the "Cheyne SIV"). The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. On September 2, 2009, the court dismissed all of the claims against the Company except for plaintiffs' claims for common law fraud. On June 15, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 20, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs leave to replead their aiding and abetting common law fraud claims against the Company, and those claims were added in an amended complaint filed on August 5, 2010. On December 27, 2011, the court permitted plaintiffs to reinstate their causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty against the Company. The Company moved to dismiss these claims on January 10, 2012. On January 5, 2012, the court permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint and assert a negligence claim against the Company. The amended complaint was filed on January 9, 2012 and the Company moved to dismiss the negligence claim on January 17, 2012. On January 23, 2012, the Company moved for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. There are 15 plaintiffs in this action asserting claims related to approximately $983 million of securities issued by the SIV.
On September 25, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit styled Citibank, N.A. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International, PLC, pending in the SDNY. The lawsuit relates to a credit default swap referencing the Capmark VI CDO, which was structured by Citibank, N.A. ("Citi N.A."). At issue is whether, as part of the swap agreement, Citi N.A. was obligated to obtain the Company's prior written consent before it exercised its rights to liquidate Capmark upon the occurrence of certain contractually-defined credit events. Citi N.A. is seeking approximately $245 million in compensatory damages plus interest and costs. On May 25, 2011, the court issued an order denying the Company's motion for summary judgment and granting Citi N.A.'s cross motion for summary judgment. On June 27, 2011, the court entered a final judgment against the Company for approximately $269 million plus post-judgment interest, and the Company filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which appeal is now pending.
On December 14, 2009, Central Mortgage Company ("CMC") filed a complaint against the Company, in a matler styled Central Mortgage Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleged that that Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC improperly refused to repurchase certain mortgage loans that CMC, as servicer, was required to repurchase from the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") and the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"). On November 4, 2011, CMC filed an amended complaint adding claims related to its purchase of servicing rights in connection with approximately $4.1 billion of residential loans deposited into RMBS trusts sponsored by the Company. The amended complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, quasi-contract, equitable and tort claims and seeks compensatory damages and equitable remedies, including rescission, injunctive relief, damages, restitution and disgorgement. On January 9, 2012, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
Morgan Stanley
On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 28, 2010. The complaint 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff s purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company's individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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 were filed on June 10, 2010. The complaints 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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On April 18, 2011, defendants in these actions filed an omnibus demurrer and motion to strike the amended complaints. On July 29, 2011 and September 8, 2011, the court presiding over both actions sustained defendants' demurrers with respect to claims brought under the Securities Act, and overruled defendants' demurrers with respect to all other claims.
On June 10, 2010, the Company was named as a new defendant in a pre-existing purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Rhinebridge pic ("Rhinebridge SIV"). The case is styled King County, Washington, et al. v. 1KB Deutsche Industriebank AG, et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud and aiding and abetting common law fraud and alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. On July 15, 2010, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint. That motion was denied on October 29, 2010. On December 27, 2011, the court permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint and assert causes of action for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty against the Company. The amended complaint was filed on January 10, 2012 and the Company moved to dismiss the negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty claims on January 31, 2012. The case is pending before the same judge presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV, described above. While reserving their ability to act otherwise, plaintiffs have indicated that they do not currently plan to file a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and arc seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
On July 9, 2010, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, styled Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of certain clients of plaintiffs affiliates and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale of a number of 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 plaintiffs affiliates' clients by the Company was approximately $242 million. The complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On February 11, 2011, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed a second complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts also styled Cambridge Place
Morgan Stanley
Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co Inc. el al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of clients of plaintiffs affiliates, and alleges that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in selling certain mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued or underwritten by the Company or sold to plaintiffs affiliates' clients by the Company was approximately $102 million. The complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On October 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in each action. On November 22, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaints.
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribus Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiffs subsidiaries 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's subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On October 13, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims brought under the Securities Act. On January 27, 2012, the court, in a ruling from the bench, substantially overruled defendants' demurrers.
On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank ("CDIB") filed a complaint against the Company, which is styled China Development Industrial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. 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 September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 28, 2011, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 21, 2011, the Company appealed the order denying its motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 7, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision denying the Company's motion to dismiss.
On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed two complaints against the Company and other defendants. One was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois and is styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. The other was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California and is styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. The complaints allege 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 the two actions was approximately $203 million and $75 million respectively. The complaint filed in Illinois raises claims under Illinois law. The complaint filed in California raises claims under the federal securities laws, Illinois law and California law. Both complaints seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On March 24, 2011, the Court presiding over Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On May 27, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion is currently pending. On September 15, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. On December 1, 2011, defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which demurrer is currently pending.
Morgan Stanley
i
i
i
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. The complaint 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 $550 million. The 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, and on June 22, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to stale court.
On July 5, 2011, Allstate Insurance Company and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in New York State Supreme Court styled Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untnie 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 and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $104 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On September 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On October 14, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion is currently pending.
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. The complaint 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 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.
On September 2, 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, filed 17 complaints against numerous financial services companies, including the Company. A complaint against the Company and other defendants was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $11 billion. The complaint raises claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and seeks, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On September 26, 2011, defendants removed the action to the SDNY and on October 26, 2011, the FHFA moved to remand the action back to the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
On September 2, 2011, the FHFA, as conservator for Freddie Mac, also filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. General Electric Company et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $549 million. The complaint raises claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and seeks, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On October 6, 2011, defendants removed the action to the SDNY and on November 7, 2011, the FHFA moved to remand the action back to the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
On November4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each is styled Federal Deposit
Morgan Stanley
Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raise claims under both federal securities law and the Texas Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiffs purchase of such certificates.
On January 20, 2012, Sealink Funding Limited filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York styled Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") formerly sponsored by SachsenLB Europe. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the SPVs of certain mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold by the Company was approximately $556 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates.
On January 25, 2012, Dexia SA/NV and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York styled Dexia SA/NV et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint 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 total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $680 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases ofsuch certificates.
On January 25, 2012, Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York styled Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint 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 and/or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $486 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates.
Other Matters. On a case-by-case basis the Company has entered into agreements to toll the statute of limitations applicable to potential civil claims related to RMBS, CDOs and other mortgage-related products and services when the Company has concluded that it is in its interest to do so.
On October 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP (the "Law Firm"), which is purportedly representing a group of investment advisers and holders of mortgage pass through certificates issued by RMBS trusts that were sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The letter asserted that the Law Firm's clients collectively hold 25% or more of the voting rights in 17 RMBS trusts sponsored or underwritten by the Company and that these trusts have an aggregate outstanding balance exceeding $6 billion. The letter alleged generally that large numbers of mortgages in these trusts were sold or deposited into the trusts based on false and/or fraudulent representations and warranties by the mortgage originators, sellers and/or depositors. The letter also alleged generally that there is evidence suggesting that the Company has failed prudently to service mortgage loans in these trusts. On January 31, 2012, the Law Firm announced that its clients hold over 25% of the voting rights in 69 RMBS trusts securing over $25 billion of RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company, and that its clients had issued instructions to the trustees of these trusts to open investigations into
Morgan Stanley
allegedly ineligible mortgages held by these trusts. The Law Firm's press release also indicated lhat the Law Firm's clients anticipate that they may provide additional instructions to the trustees, as needed, to further the investigations.
Shareholder Derivative Matter.
On February 11, 2010, a shareholder derivative complaint styled Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America Retirement Fund, et al. v. John J. Mack et al. was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The complaint is purportedly for the benefit of the Company, and is brought against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company, to recover damages for alleged acts of corporate waste, breaches of the duty of loyalty, and unjust enrichment based on the amount of compensation awarded to an undefined group of employees for fiscal years 2006, 2007 and 2009. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of compensation, benefits and profits, and institution of certain corporate governance reforms. On December 9, 2010, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and on February 4, 2011, plaintiffs noticed an appeal of that dismissal, which appeal is pending.
China Matter.
As disclosed in February 2009, the Company uncovered actions initiated by an employee based in China in an overseas real estate subsidiary that appear to have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company terminated the employee, reported the activity to appropriate authorities and is cooperating with investigations by the United States Department of Justice and the SEC.
The following matters were terminated during the quarter ended December 31, 2011:
In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, which had been pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, involved claims under the Securities Act related to three offerings by Washington Mutual Inc. in 2006 and 2007. Tlie Company was one of several underwriters who participated in the offerings. The Company underwrote approximately $1.3 billion of the securities covered by the class certified by the court. On November 4, 2011, a final settlement among the parties was approved by the court.
Employees' Retirement System ofthe Government ofthe Virgin Islands v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et ai, which had been pending in the SDNY, involved claims for common law fraud and unjust enrichment against the Company related to the Libertas III CDO. On November 3, 2011, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice.
MBIA Insurance Corporation v. Morgan Stanley, et al. which had been pending in New York Supreme Court, Westchester County, involved claims for fraud, breach of contract and unjust enrichment against the Company related to MBIA Insurance Corporation's ("MBIA's") contract to insure approximately $223 million of residential mortgage pass through certificates related a second lien securitization sponsored by the Company in June 2007. On December 13, 2011, the Company and MBIA entered into an agreement to settle this litigation and to resolve certain claims that the Company had against MBIA.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2012 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact name of Regisrrant as specified in us charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212)761-4000
(Stare or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Title of each class which regisrered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Series A, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6 'A% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6 'A% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
5 V4% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Tnist VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley Cushing* MLP High Income Index ETNs due March 21, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Crude Oil Linked ETNs duc July 1, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 ofthe Securities Act. YES fx] NO ? Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES fj NO fx]
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES |x] NO f_J
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES fx] NO O
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K. or any amendment to this Form 10-K. (x)
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [X] Accelerated Filer fj
Non-Accelerated Filer Q Smaller reporting company fj
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES fj NO [X]
As of June 29, 2012, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $28,757,715,880. This calculation does not reflect a detennination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of February 5, 2013, there were 1,961,257,664 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2013 annual meeting of shareholders arc incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, and involving, among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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.
In many proceedings, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount of any loss. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek substantial or indeterminate damages. 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, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings in question, before a loss or additional loss or range of loss or additional loss can be reasonably estimated for any proceeding. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity focused on residential mortgage and credit crisis related matters 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 regarding residential mortgages and related securities in the future and, while the Company has identified below certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from residential mortgage claims that have not yet been notified to the Company or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS"), collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass-through certificates. These matters include, but are not limited to, investigations related lo the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's disclosures to investors, and the Company's handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.
Morgan Stanley
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in Ihe United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401 (k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's common stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its common stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On March 26, 2012, defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the complaint.
On March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et ai, was filed in the SDNY asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants knew or should have known that from January 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008, the plans' investment in Company stock was imprudent given the extraordinary risks faced by the Company and its common stock during that period. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On July 20, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on October 28, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On February 12, 2008, a purported class action, styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al, was filed in the SDNY against the Company and certain present and former executives asserting claims on behalf ofa purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint related in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also included allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January 18, 2013. On February 14, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit").
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), which is now styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation and is pending in the SDNY. The third amended complaint, filed on September 30, 2011, alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On January 11, 2013, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration which sought to expand the offerings at issue in the litigation based on recent precedent from the Second Circuit. On January 31, 2013, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint, in which they purport to represent investors who purchased approximately $7.82 billion in mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2006 by 14 trusts.
Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass-through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification,
Morgan Stanley
unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued or sponsored the securities and mortgage pass-through certificates al issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases, including In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, relate to issuers or sponsors (or their affiliates) that have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership.
In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. The Company underwrote approximately $232 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. A group of underwriter defendants, including the Company, settled the main litigation on December 2, 2012. The underwriter defendants, including the Company, continue to defend claims by investors who opted out of the settlement or who purchased securities not covered by the settlement.
In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to offerings of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. On June 21, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint. The Company underwrote approximately $46 million of the principal amount of the offerings currently at issue. In July 2011, certain putative additional plaintiffs appealed the court's June 2011 order denying the motion to add them as additional plaintiffs as to the Company. The Company is opposing the appeals. On August 17, 2012, the court granted class certification. On October 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to expand the offerings at issue in the litigation, relying on recent precedent from the Second Circuit. Defendants have opposed the motion. If the motion is granted and the offerings are included in the class that is certified, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company at issue in the litigation will be approximately $1.68 billion.
Luther, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, was filed on November 14, 2007 and involves claims related to the Company's role as an underwriter of various residential mortgage backed securities offerings issued by affiliates of Countrywide Financial Corporation. The amended complaint includes allegations that the registration statements and the offering documents contained false and misleading statements about the residential mortgage loans backing the securities. The Company underwrote approximately $6.3 billion of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On December 19, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. In February 2012, defendants moved to stay the case pending resolution of a securities class action brought by the same plaintiffs, styled Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et ai, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In June 2012, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The motion to remand the matter was denied in August 2012.
Other Litigation. On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Cheyne Finance PLC and Cheyne Finance LLC (together, the "Cheyne SIV"). The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. The plaintiffs currently assert allegations of aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation relating to approximately $852 million of securities issued by the Cheyne SIV. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in June 2010. The court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment on the aiding and abetting fraud claim in August 2012. The Company's motion for summary judgment on the negligent misrepresentation claim, filed on November 30, 2012, is pending. The court has set a trial date of May 6, 2013. There are currently 14 named plaintiffs in the action claiming damages of approximately $638 million, as well as punitive damages.
Morgan Stanley
On December 14, 2009, Central Mortgage Company ("CMC") filed a complaint against the Company, in a matter styled Central Mortgage Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleged that that Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC improperly refused to repurchase certain mortgage loans that CMC, as servicer, was required to repurchase from the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") and the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mac"). On November 4, 2011, CMC filed an amended complaint adding claims related to its purchase of servicing rights in connection with approximately $4.1 billion of residential loans deposited into RMBS trusts sponsored by the Company. The amended complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, quasi-contract, equitable and tort claims and seeks compensatory damages and equitable remedies, including rescission, injunctive relief, damages, restitution and disgorgement. On August 7, 2012, the court granted in part the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. The amended complaint, filed on September 28, 2010, 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company's individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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 ai, and Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. et al., respectively. Amended complaints were filed on June 10, 2010. The amended complaints 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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On July 29, 2011 and September 8, 2011, the court presiding over both actions sustained defendants' demurrers with respect to claims brought under the Securities Act, and overruled defendants' demurrers with respect to all other claims.
On June 10, 2010, the Company was named as a new defendant in a pre-existing action related to securities issued by a SIV called Rhinebridge PLC and Rhinebridge LLC (together, the "Rhinebridge SIV"). The case is styled King County, Washington, et al. v. 1KB Deutsche Industriehank AG, et al. and is pending in the SDNY before the same judge presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV, described above. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence on May 4, 2012. On September 7, 2012, the Company moved for summary judgment with respect to the remaining claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and aiding and abetting fraud. On January 3, 2013, the court granted the motion for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims and denied it with respect to the aiding and abetting fraud claim. The two named plaintiffs claim approximately $65 million in lost principal and interest, as well as punitive damages.
On July 9, 2010 and February 11, 2011, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed two separate complaints against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, both styled Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et
Morgan Stanley
al. The complaints assert claims on behalf of certain clients of plaintiffs affiliates and allege that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale of a number of 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 plaintiffs affiliates' clients by the Company in the two matters was approximately $344 million. The complaints raise claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act and seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On October 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in each action. On November 22, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaints. On March 12, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs standing to bring suit. Defendants sought interlocutory appeal from that decision on April 11, 2012. On April 26, 2012, defendants filed a second motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which the court denied, in substantial part, on October 2, 2012.
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court ofthe State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribas Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiff s subsidiaries 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 s subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On October 13, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims brought under the Securities Act. On January 27, 2012, the court, in a ruling from the bench, substantially overruled defendants' demurrers. On March 5, 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a demurrer to certain causes of action in the second amended complaint, which the court overruled on July 24, 2012.
On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank ("CDIB") filed a complaint against the Company, which is styled China Development Industrial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County ("Supreme Court of NY, NY County"). 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 September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 28, 2011, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 7, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision denying the Company's motion to dismiss.
On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed two complaints against the Company and other defendants. One was filed 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 other was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. The complaints allege 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 the two actions was approximately $203 million and $75 million respectively. The complaint filed in Illinois raises claims under Illinois law. The complaint filed in California raises claims under the federal securities laws, Illinois law and California law. Both complaints seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On March 24, 2011, the court presiding over Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On May 27, 2011,
Morgan Stanley
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was denied on September 19, 2012. The Company filed its answer on December 21, 2012. On September 15, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. On December 1,
2011, defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on statute of limitations and statute of repose
grounds, which demurrer was overruled on June 28, 2012. On August 31, 2012, defendants filed demurrers on
the merits of the complaint.
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 $550 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 plaintiffs 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.
On July 5, 2011, Allstate Insurance Company and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 9, 2011 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 and/ or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $104 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On October 14, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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. On May 21,
2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was denied on August 3,
2012. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in November 2013.
On September 2, 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, filed 17 complaints against numerous financial services companies, including the Company. A complaint against the Company and other defendants was filed in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass-through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $11 billion. The complaint raises claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and seeks, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On September 26, 2011, defendants removed the action to the SDNY and on October 26, 2011, the FHFA moved to remand the action back to the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. On May 11, 2012, plaintiff withdrew its motion to remand. On July 13, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which motion was denied in large part on November 19, 2012. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in January 2015.
Morgan Stanley
i
j
I
|1010|j
On September 2, 2011, the FHFA, as conservator for Freddie Mac, also filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. General Electric Company et al. The complaint alleged that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass-through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $549 million. The complaint raised claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and sought, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On October 6, 2011, defendants removed the action to the SDNY. On January 22, 2013, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to all defendants.
On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each was styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleged that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raised claims under both federal securities law and the Texas Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On March 20, 2012, the Company filed answers to the complaints in both cases. On June 13, 2012, the Company removed the cases to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On June 21, 2012, the Company moved to transfer the action to the SDNY. On November 27, 2012, the court granted the plaintiffs motion to remand the action to Texas slate court, and denied the Company's motion to transfer the case to New York. On January 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions with respect to plaintiffs claims. On February 6, 2013, the FDIC filed an amended consolidated complaint.
On January 20, 2012, Sealink Funding Limited filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") formerly sponsored by SachsenLB Europe. An amended complaint was filed on May 21, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the SPVs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold by the Company was approximately $507 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On September 7, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On January 25, 2012, Dexia SA/NV and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Dexia SA/NV et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 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 total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $626 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/ or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On August 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On January 25, 2012, Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 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 and/or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $411 million. The amended complaint raises common
Morgan Stanley
law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On July 27, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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 wilh 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 ofsuch 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 January 23, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On April 25, 2012, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and certain affiliates filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on June 29, 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 total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company was approximately $758 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, rescission, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages, as well as punitive damages, associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On September 21, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On August 7, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage .Loan Trust 2006-4SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4SL (together, the "Trust") against the Company. The matter is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $303 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreement underlying the transaction, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On October 8, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
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, NY County. 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. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreements underlying the transactions, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On October 9, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On August 10, 2012, the FDIC, as receiver for Colonial Bank, filed two complaints against the Company in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Alabama. The first action is styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as
Morgan Stanley
Receiver for Colonial Bank v. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. et al. and alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Colonial Bank of a mortgage pass-through certificate backed by a securitization trust containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of the certificate allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to Colonial Bank was approximately $65 million. On September 12, 2012, defendants removed the case to the United Slates District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, and on October 12, 2012, plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court. The second action is styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Colonial Bank v. Countrywide Securities Corporation et al. and alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Colonial Bank 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 to Colonial Bank was approximately $144 million. On September 10, 2012, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, and on September 21, 2012, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On October 11, 2012, plaintiff moved to remand the case back to state court, which motion was denied on December 7, 2012. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 22, 2013. The complaints each raise claims under federal securities law and the Alabama Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with Colonial Bank's purchase of such certificates.
On September 28, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX against the Company styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-I3ARX v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor in interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., pending in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. U.S. Bank filed an amended complaint on January 17, 2013, which asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $609 million, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory judgment relief, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest.
On October 5, 2012, a complaint was filed against the Company and others in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Phoenix Light SF Limited et al v. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs, or their assignors, of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs or their assignors by the Company was approximately $344 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation and rescission based on mutual mistake and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, punitive damages or alternatively rescission or rescissionary damages associated with the purchase of such certificates. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on December 14, 2012.
On May 1, 2012, Asset Management Fund d/b/a AMF Funds and certain of its affiliated funds filed a summons with notice against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Asset Management Fund d/b/a AMF Funds et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $122 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common-law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages and rescission. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on October 22, 2012. On December 3, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On November 16, 2012, 1KB International S.A. and an affiliate filed a summons with notice against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled 1KB International S.A. In
Morgan Stanley
Liquidation v. Morgan Stanley el al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $147 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation as well as contract claims. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages, and rescission.
On November 21, 2012, Deutsche Zentral Genossenshaftsbank AG and an affiliate filed a summons with notice against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Deutsche Zentral Genossenshaftsbank AG, Mew York Branch, d/b/a DZ Bank AG New York Branch v. Morgan Stanley et al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $694 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among "other things, common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation as well as contract claims. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages, and rescission.
On November 28, 2012, Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of an unspecified amount of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among olher things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs purchases of such certificates. On February 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On December 14, 2012, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Merrill Lynch et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $628 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting fraud, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages.
On January 10, 2013, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-IOSL against the Company. The complaint is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL, 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, NY County. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $300 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order requiring the Company to comply with the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest.
On January 25, 2013, the FHFA filed a summons with notice on behalf of the Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI, against the Company. The matter is styled Federal Housing Finance Age/icy, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 007-NC1 v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.25 billion,
Morgan Stanley
breached various representations and warranties. The notice seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest.
On January 30, 2013, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a summons with notice on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX against the Company. The matter is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX, by U.S. Bank National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor-by-merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Greenpoinl Mortgage Funding, Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $650 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest.
On August 24, 2012, HSH Nordbank AG and certain affiliates filed a summons with notice against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled HSH Nordbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiff was approximately $524 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages, and rescission. An amended summons with notice was filed on November 28, 2012.
On August 29, 2012, Bank Hapoalim B.M. filed a summons with notice against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $141 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages, and rescission. An amended summons with notice was filed on December 4, 2012.
Other Matters. On a case-by-case basis the Company has entered into agreements to toll the statute of limitations applicable to potential civil claims related to RMBS, CDOs and other mortgage-related products and services when the Company has concluded that it is in its interest to do so.
On October 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP (the "Law Firm"), which is purportedly representing a group of investment advisers and holders of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by RMBS trusts that were sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The letter asserted that the Law Firm's clients collectively hold 25% or more of the voting rights in 17 RMBS trusts sponsored or underwritten by the Company and that these trusts have an aggregate outstanding balance exceeding $6 billion. The letter alleged generally that large numbers of mortgages in these trusts were sold or deposited into the trusts based on false and/or fraudulent representations and warranties by the mortgage originators, sellers and/or depositors. The letter also alleged generally that there is evidence suggesting that the Company has failed prudently to service mortgage loans in these trusts. On January 31, 2012, the Law Firm announced that its clients hold over 25% of the voting rights in 69 RMBS trusts securing over $25 billion of RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company, and that its clients had issued instructions to the trustees of these trusts to open investigations into allegedly ineligible mortgages held by these trusts. The Law Firm's press release also indicated that the Law Firm's clients anticipate that they may provide additional instructions to the trustees, as needed, to further the investigations. On September 19, 2012, the Company received two puiported Notices of Non-Performance from the Law Firm purportedly on behalf of the holders of significant voting rights in various trusts securing over $28 billion of residential mortgage backed securities sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The Notice purports
Morgan Stanley
to identify certain covenants in Pooling and Servicing Agreements ("PSAs") that the holders allege that the Servicer and Master Servicer failed lo perform, and alleges that each of these failures has materially affected the rights of certificate holders and constitutes an ongoing event of default under the relevant PSAs. On November 2, 2012, the Company responded to the letters, denying the allegations therein.
On April 2, 2012, the Company entered into a Consent Order (the "Order") with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the "Federal Reserve") relating to the servicing of residential mortgage loans. The tenns of the Order are substantially similar and, in many respects, identical to the orders entered into with the Federal Reserve by other large U.S. financial institutions. The Order, which is available on the Federal Reserve's website, sets forth various allegations of improper conduct in servicing by Saxon, requires that the Company and its affiliates cease and desist such conduct, and requires that the Company, and its Board of Directors and affiliates, take various affirmative steps. The Order requires (i) the Company to engage an independent third-party consultant to conduct a review of certain foreclosure actions or proceedings that occurred or were pending between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010; (ii) the adoption of policies and procedures related to management of third parties used to outsource residential mortgage servicing, loss mitigation or foreclosure; (iii) a "validation report" from an independent third-party consultant regarding compliance with the Order for the first year; and (iv) submission of quarterly progress reports as to compliance with the Order by the Company's the Board of Directors. The Order also provides that the Company will be responsible for the payment of any civil money penalties or compensatory payments assessed by the Federal Reserve related to such alleged conduct, which penalties or payments have not yet been determined. On January 15, 2013, the Company entered into a settlement with the Federal Reserve which resulted in the early termination of the foreclosure review process required by the Order and, in its place, the Company agreed to pay into a settlement fund and to pay additional funds for borrower relief efforts. The Federal Reserve has reserved the ability to impose civil monetary penalties on Saxon.
Commercial Mortgage Related Matter.
On January 25, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in The Bank of New York Mellon Trust, National Association v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc., a litigation pending in the SDNY. The suit, brought by the trustee of a series of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, alleges that the Company breached certain representations and warranties with respect to an $81 million commercial mortgage loan that was originated and transferred to the trust by the Company. The complaint seeks, among other things, to have the Company repurchase the loan and pay additional monetary damages. On June 27, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, but directed the filing of an amended complaint. On July 29, 2011, the Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint. On September 21, 2012, the Company and plaintiff filed motions for summary judgment.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
Morgan Stanley
i I
I
i
I
I
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant co Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 3 J, 2013 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exacr name ol Registrant ;is specified m its charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212) 761-4000
(State or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Title of each class which registered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing l/l,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Prefcned Stock,
Series A, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1 /1,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred
Stock, Series E, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred
Stock, Scries F, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6'/4% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6'/4% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
5V4% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs duc April 30,2020 (2 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley Gushingยฎ MLP High Income Index ETNs due March 21, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Crude Oil Linked ETNs due July 1, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 ofthe Securities Act. YES fx] NO ?
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES ? NO fx]
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES fx] NO ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES fx] NO fj
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. fj
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer fx] Accelerated Filer fj
Non-Accelerated Filer fj Smaller reporting company ?
(Do nol check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES Q NO fx]
As of June 28, 2013, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $45,831,657,254. This calculation docs not reflect a detennination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of January 31, 2014, there were 1,975,673,438 shares of Registrant's common stock, S0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2014 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, and involving, among other matters, sales and trading activities, financial products or offerings sponsored, underwritten or sold by the Company, and accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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.
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. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings or investigations will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings and investigations where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or government 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. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings and investigations will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings or investigations could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by government 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 certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain federal and state regulatory and governmental entities, including among others various members of the RMBS Working Group of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS"), collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass-
Morgan Stanley
i
i
j i
i i
i i
through certificates. These matters include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's disclosures to investors, and the Company's handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.
On January 30, 2014, the Company reached an 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 ceitain subprime RMBS transactions sponsored and underwritten by the Company in 2007. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, the Company would be charged with violating Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) ofthe Securities Act, and the Company would pay disgorgement and penalties in an amount of $275 million and would neither admit nor deny the SEC's findings. The SEC has not yet presented the proposed settlement to the Commission and no assurance can be given that it will be accepted.
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including ceitain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et ai, was filed in the SDNY asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants knew or should have known that from January 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008, the plans' investment in Company stock was imprudent given the extraordinary risks faced by the Company and its common stock during that period. On March 28, 2013, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss both actions. Plaintiffs filed notices of appeal on June 27, 2013 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") in both matters, which have been consolidated on appeal.
On February 12, 2008, a purported class action, styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., was filed in the SDNY against the Company and certain present and former executives asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint related in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, and also included allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January 18, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Second Circuit, which appeal is pending.
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), which is now styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation and is pending in the SDNY. The third amended complaint, filed on September 30, 2011, alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of ceitain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On January 31, 2013, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint, in which they purport to represent investors who purchased approximately $7.82 billion in mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2006 by 13 trusts. On August 30, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.
On May 14, 2009, the Company was named as one of several underwriter defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act which is now styled In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation and is pending in the SDNY. The claims against the Company relate to offerings of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by several trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during
Morgan Stanley
I
I
I
I
2006 and 2007. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The amount of the certificates underwritten by the Company at issue in the litigation was approximately $1.68 billion. On August 17, 2012, the court granted class certification with respect to one offering underwritten by the Company. On August 30, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the certified class to include additional offerings. IndyMac Bank, which was the sponsor of these securitizations, filed for bankruptcy on July 31, 200S, and the Company's ability to be indemnified by IndyMac Bank is limited.
On October 25, 2010, the Company, certain affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle ("SPV"), were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by the SPV in Singapore, commonly referred to as Pinnacle Notes. The case is styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. An amended complaint was filed on October 22, 2012. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 22, 2013 and granted class certification on October 17, 2013. On October 30, 2013, defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the court's decision granting class certification. On January 31, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors by structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited subsequently from the securities' failure. In addition, the second amended complaint alleges that the securities' offering materials contained material misstatements or omissions regarding the securities' underlying assets and the alleged conflicts of interest between the defendants and the investors. The second amended complaint asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs seek damages of approximately $138.7 million, rescission, punitive damages, and interest.
Other Litigation. On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. The amended complaint, filed on September 28, 2010, 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company's individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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 ai, and Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. et al, respectively. Amended complaints were filed on June 10, 2010. The amended complaints 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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On August 11, 2011, plaintiffs 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, plaintiffs 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.
Morgan Stanley
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribus Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiffs subsidiaries 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's subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On October 13, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims brought under the Securities Act. On January 27, 2012, the court, in a ruling from the bench, substantially overruled defendants' demurrers. On March 5, 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a demurrer to certain causes of action in the second amended complaint, which the court overruled on July 24, 2012. The Company filed its answer to the second amended complaint on August 3, 2012. An initial trial of certain of plaintiffs claims is scheduled to begin in July 2015.
On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank ("CDIB") filed a complaint against the Company, which is styled China Development Industrial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The Complaint relates to a $275 million credit default swap referencing the super senior portion ofthe 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 ofthe 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 March 10, 2011, the Company filed its answer to the complaint.
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 and asserts claims under Illinois law. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by the Company at issue in the action was approximately $203 million. The complaint seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On March 24, 2011, the court presiding over Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. 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 ofthe securitizations at issue.
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 plaintiffs 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.
On July 5, 2011, Allstate Insurance Company and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 9, 2011 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and
Morgan Stanley
I !
! i
!
i i
l
i
|
|1010|J i
! j
I I
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 and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $104 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On March 15, 2013, the court denied in substantial part the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which order the Company appealed on April 11, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the Company filed its answer to the amended complaint.
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.
On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each was styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleged that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raised claims under both federal securities law and the Texas Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On March 20, 2012, the Company filed answers to the complaints in both cases. On June 7, 2012, the two cases were consolidated. On January 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions with respect to plaintiffs claims. On February 6, 2013, the FDIC filed an amended consolidated complaint. On February 25, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions, which motion was denied in substantial part on April 26, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the FDIC filed a second amended consolidated complaint. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in November 2014.
On January 20, 2012, Sealink Funding Limited filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") formerly sponsored by SachsenLB Europe. An amended complaint was filed on May 21, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the SPVs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold by the Company was approximately $507 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On March 20, 2013, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On May 3, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On January 25, 2012, Dexia SA/NV and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Dexia SA/NV et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 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 total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs by the
Morgan Stanley
I
i
I
i
j I
I
I I
Company was approximately $626 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On October 16, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 18, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal and a motion to renew their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss.
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 ofsuch 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.
On August 7, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4SL (together, the "Trust") against the Company. The matter is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL, et al. v. 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 Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $303 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreement underlying the transaction, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On October 8, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
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. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreements underlying the transactions, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. 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.
On August 10, 2012, the FDIC, as receiver for Colonial Bank, filed a complaint against the Company in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Alabama styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Colonial Bank v. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. el al The complaint alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Colonial Bank of a mortgage pass-through certificate backed by a securitization trust containing residential loans. The complaint raises claims under federal
Morgan Stanley
securities law and the Alabama Securities Act and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages. The total amount of the certificate allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to Colonial Bank was approximately $65 million. On September 13, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 12, 2013.
On September 28, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX against the Company styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-I3ARX v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor in interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., pending in the Supreme Court of NY. U.S. Bank filed an amended complaint on January 17, 2013, which asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $609 million, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory judgment relief, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On March 18,2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On October 22, 2012, Asset Management Fund d/b/a AMF Funds and certain of its affiliated funds filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Asset Management Fund d/b/a AMF Funds et al v. Morgan Stanley el al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $122 million. The complaint asserts causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, monetary and punitive damages. On December 3, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 18, 2013, the court dismissed claims with respect to seven certificates purchased by the plaintiff. The remaining claims relate to certificates with an original balance of $10.6 million. On September 12, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal concerning the court's decision granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed a notice of cross-appeal on September 26, 2013.
On December 14, 2012, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Merrill Lynch et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans totaling approximately $628 million. On March 15, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 17, 2013, the court signed a joint proposed order and stipulation allowing plaintiffs to replead their complaint and defendants to withdraw their motion to dismiss without prejudice. On October 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a new complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Morgan Stanley et al. The new complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $597 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On February 3, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On January 10, 2013, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-10SL against the Company. The complaint is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL, 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 trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $300 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order requiring the Company to comply with the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest. On March 11, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Morgan Stanley
On January 31, 2013, HSH Nordbank AG and certain affiliates filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, styled HSH Nordbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiff was approximately $524 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On April 12, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On February 14, 2013, Bank Hapoalim B.M. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $141 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On April 26, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On March 7, 2013, the Federal Housing Finance Agency filed a summons with notice on behalf of the trustee of the Saxon Asset Securities Trust, Series 2007-1, against the Company and an affiliate. The matter is styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Saxon Asset Securities Trust, Series 2007-1 v. Saxon Funding Management LLC and Morgan Stanley and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $593 million, breached various representations and warranties. The notice seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, indemnity, and interest.
On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs in Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiff was approximately $694 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On July 12,2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On May 17, 2013, plaintiff in 1KB International S.A. in Liquidation, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $132 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On July 26, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On July 2, 2013, the trustee, Deutsche Bank became the named plaintiff in Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee ofthe Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI (MSAC 2007-NCI) v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of NY under the caption Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I, Inc. On
Morgan Stanley
i
I i
I
i
February 3, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.25 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, rescission and interest.
On July 8, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint in Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX, by U.S. Bank National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor-by-merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. The complaint, filed in the Supreme Court of NY, asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $650 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages and interest. On August 22, 2013, the Company a filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On August 5, 2013, Landesbank Baden-Wiirttemberg and two affiliates filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY styled Landesbank Baden-Wiirttemberg et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $50 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission based upon mutual mistake, and seeks, among other things, rescission, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. On October 4, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On August 16, 2013, plaintiffs in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. 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 $567 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 California Corporate Securities Law of 1968, and violations of the Kansas Blue Sky Law and seeks, among other things, rescissionary and compensatory damages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 4, 2013. On December 27, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss in substantial part. The surviving claims relate to one certificate purchased by the plaintiff for approximately $17 million.
On August 26, 2013, a complaint was filed against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Phoenix Light SF Limited et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs, or their assignors, of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs or their assignors by the Company was approximately $344 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation and rescission based on mutual mistake and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, punitive damages or alternatively rescission or rescissionary damages associated wilh the purchase of such certificates. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on December 13, 2013.
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 SDNY. 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
Morgan Stanley
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, rescissionary 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.
On November 6, 2013, Deutsche Bank, in its capacity as trustee, became the named plaintiff in Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC3 (MSAC 2007-NC3) v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of NY under the caption Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, solely in its capacity as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC3 v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as Successor-by-Merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.3 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, rescission, interest and costs. On December 16, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On December 24, 2013, Commerzbank AG London Branch filed a summons with notice against the Company and others in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Commerzbank AG London Branch v. UBS AG et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain other entities. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff's assignors 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $207 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common-law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, civil conspiracy, tortious interference and unjust enrichment. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages of at least approximately $207 million and punitive damages.
On December 30, 2013, Wilmington Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-12, filed a complaint against the Company. The matter is styled Wilmington Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC et al. 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 trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $516 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, interest and costs.
On January 15, 2014, the FDIC, as receiver for United Western Bank filed a complaint against the Company and others in the District Court of the State of Colorado, styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for United Western Bank v. Banc of America Funding Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to United Western Bank of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold to United Western Bank by the Company was approximately $75 million. The complaint raises claims under both federal securities law and the Colorado Securities Act and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiffs purchase ofsuch certificates.
Olher Mailers. On a case-by-case basis the Company has entered into agreements to toll the statute of limitations applicable to potential civil claims related to RMBS, CDOs and other mortgage-related products and services when the Company has concluded that it is in its interest to do so.
Morgan Stanley
I
On October 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP (the "Law Finn"), which is purportedly representing a group of investment advisers and holders of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by RMBS trusts that were sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The letter asserted that the Law Finn's clients collectively hold 25% or more of the voting rights in 17 RMBS trusts sponsored or underwritten by the Company and that these trusts have an aggregate outstanding balance exceeding $6 billion. The letter alleged generally that large numbers of mortgages in these trusts were sold or deposited into the trusts based on false and/or fraudulent representations and warranties by the mortgage originators, sellers and/or depositors. The letter also alleged generally that there is evidence suggesting that the Company has failed prudently to service mortgage loans in these trusts. On January 31, 2012, the Law Firm announced that its clients hold over 25% of the voting rights in 69 RMBS trusts securing over $25 billion of RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company, and that its clients had issued instructions to the trustees of these trusts to open investigations into allegedly ineligible mortgages held by these trusts. The Law Firm's press release also indicated that the Law Finn's clients anticipate that they may provide additional instructions to the trustees, as needed, to further the investigations. On September 19, 2012, the Company received two purported Notices of Non-Performance from the Law Firm puiportedly on behalf of the holders of significant voting rights in various trusts securing over $28 billion of residential mortgage backed securities sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The Notice purports to identify certain covenants in Pooling and Servicing Agreements ("PSAs") that the holders allege that the Servicer and Master Servicer failed to perform, and alleges that each of these failures has materially affected the rights of certificateholders and constitutes an ongoing event of default under the relevant PSAs. On November 2, 2012, the Company responded to the letters, denying the allegations therein.
Commercial Mortgage Related Matter.
On January 25, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in The Bank of New York Mellon Trust, National Association v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc., a litigation pending in the SDNY. The suit, brought by the trustee of a series of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, alleges that the Company breached certain representations and warranties with respect to an $81 million commercial mortgage loan that was originated and transferred to the trust by the Company. The complaint seeks, among other things, to have the Company repurchase the loan and pay additional monetary damages. On June 27, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, but directed the filing of an amended complaint. On July 29, 2011, the Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint. On June 20, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion for summary judgment, and denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. On October 30, 2013, the Company filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment.
Matters Related to the CDS Market.
On July 1, 2013, the European Commission ("EC") issued a Statement of Objections ("SO") addressed to twelve financial firms (including the Company), the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. ("ISDA") and Markit Group Limited ("Markit") and various affiliates alleging that, between 2006 and 2009, the recipients breached European Union competition law by taking and refusing to take certain actions in an effort to prevent the development of exchange traded credit default swap ("CDS") products. The SO indicates that the EC plans to impose remedial measures and fines on the recipients. The Company and the other recipients filed a response to the SO on January 21, 2014. The Company and others have also responded to an investigation by the Antitrust Division ofthe United States Department of Justice related to the CDS market.
Beginning in May 2013, twelve financial firms (including the Company), as well as ISDA and Markit, were named as defendants in multiple purported antitrust class actions now consolidated into a single proceeding in the SDNY styled In Re: Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated United States antitrust laws from 2008 to present in connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of exchange traded CDS products. The complaints seek, among other relief, certification of a class of plaintiffs who purchased CDS from defendants in the United States, treble damages and injunctive relief.
Morgan Stanley
I
i
The following matters were terminated during or following the quarter ended December 31, 2013:
In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation, which had been pending in the SDNY, related to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. A group of underwriter defendants, including the Company, settled the main litigation on December 2, 2012. The remaining opt-out claims and appeals have now been resolved.
Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP v. Morgan Stanley, et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On November 15, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On December 3, 2013, the court dismissed the action.
Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Morgan Stanley, et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On December 6, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On January 2, 2014, the court dismissed the action.
Seagull Point, LLC, individually and on behalf of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007 HE-5 v. WMC Mortgage Corp., et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the loans in the trust breached various representations and warranties. On January 9, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of discontinuance, dismissing the action against all defendants.
Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al., which had been pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On December 6, 2013, plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of all of its claims against the Company. On January 27, 2014, the court dismissed the action.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiffs in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On January 23, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation.
Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et at., which had been pending in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On February 11, 2014, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On February 20, 2014, the court dismissed the action.
Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. Morgan Stanley et ai, which had been pending in the SDNY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On February 7, 2014, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On February 20, 2014, the court dismissed the action.
On December 12, 2013, the Company entered into an agreement with American International Group, Inc. ("AIG") to resolve AIG's potential claims against the Company related to AIG's purchases of certain mortgage pass-through certificates sponsored or underwritten by the Company backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2014 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212) 761-4000
(Stare or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Title of each class which registered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) ofthe Act:
Common Stock, S0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing l/l,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Series A, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Prefencd
Stock, Series E, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing l/l,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred
Stock, Series F, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of 6.625% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Scries G, $0.0! par value New York Slock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Prefencd
Stock, Series I, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6 '/4% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6 lA% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Slock Exchange
5 Y*% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Slock Exchange
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley Cushing* MLP High Income Index ETNs duc March 21, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 ofthe Securities Act. YES [x] NO fj
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant lo Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Act. YES fj NO [x]
Indicale by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES fx] NO ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES [x] NO Q
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 ofRegulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K. or any amendment to this Form 10-K. CJ
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [X) Accelerated Filer CJ
Non-Accelerated Filer CJ Smaller reporting company CJ
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule I2b-2). YES CJ NO [X]
As of June 30, 2014, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $60,823,096,775. This calculation does not reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of January 31, 2015, there were 1,976,612,907 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2015 annual meeting of shareholders arc incorporated by reference in Part III of this Fonn 10-K.
I
I
|1010|
I
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, and involving, among other matters, sales and trading activities, financial products or offerings sponsored, underwritten or sold by the Company, and accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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.
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. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings or investigations will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings and investigations where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or government 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. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings and investigations will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings or investigations could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by government 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 certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or are nol yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company has received subpoenas and requests for information from certain federal and state regulatory and governmental entities, including among others various members of the RMBS Working Group of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, such as the United States Department of Justice, Civil Division and several state Attorney General's Offices, concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related
Morgan Stanley
I
I
I
i
I i
I
matters such as residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS"), collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass-through certificates. These matters, some of which are in advanced stages, include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's disclosures to investors, and the Company's handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.
In May 2014, the California Attorney General's Office ("CAAG"), which is one of the members of the RMBS Working Group, indicated that it has made certain preliminary conclusions that the Company made knowing and material misrepresentations regarding RMBS and that it knowingly caused material misrepresentations to be made regarding the Cheyne SIV, which issued securities marketed to the California Public Employees Retirement System. The CAAG has further indicated that it believes the Company's conduct violated California law and that it may seek treble damages, penalties and injunctive relief. The Company does not agree with these conclusions and has presented defenses to them to the CAAG.
On September 16, 2014, the Virginia Attorney General's Office filed a civil lawsuit, styled Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. Integra REC LLC v. Barclays Capital Inc., et al, against the Company and several other defendants in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond related to RMBS. The lawsuit alleges that the Company and the other defendants knowingly made misrepresentations and omissions related to the loans backing RMBS purchased by the Virginia Retirement System ("VRS"). The complaint alleges VRS suffered total losses of approximately $384 million on these securities, but does not specify the amount of alleged losses attributable to RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The complaint asserts claims under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, as well as common law claims of actual and constructive fraud, and seeks, among other things, treble damages and civil penalties. On January 20, 2015, the defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint and a plea in bar seeking dismissal of the complaint.
In October 2014, the Illinois Attorney General's Office ("IL AG") sent a letter lo the Company alleging that the Company knowingly made misrepresentations related to RMBS purchased by certain pension funds affiliated with the State of Illinois and demanding that the Company pay the IL AG approximately $88 million. The Company docs not agree with these allegations and has presented defenses to them to the IL AG.
On January 13, 2015, the New York Attorney General's Office ("NYAG"), which is also a member of the RMBS Working Group, indicated that it intends to file a lawsuit related to approximately 30 subprime securitizations sponsored by the Company. NYAG indicated that the lawsuit would allege that the Company misrepresented or omitted material information related to the due diligence, underwriting and valuation of the loans in the securitizations and the properties securing them and indicated that its lawsuit would be brought under the Martin Act. The Company does not agree with NY AG's allegations and has presented defenses to them to NYAG.
On February 25, 2015, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the United States Department of Justice, Civil Division and the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California, Civil Division (collectively, the "Civil Division") to pay $2.6 billion to resolve certain claims that the Civil Division indicated it intended to bring against the Company. While the Company and the Civil Division have reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter, there can be no assurance that the Company and the Civil Division will agree on the final documentation of the settlement.
Class Actions
On February 12, 2008, a purported class action, styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") against the Company and certain present and former executives asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint related in
Morgan Stanley
large pan to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, and also included allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January 18, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit"). On January 12, 2015, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal ofthe action.
On October 25, 2010, the Company, certain affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle ("SPV"), were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by the SPV in Singapore, commonly referred to as Pinnacle Notes. The case is styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The court granted class certification on October 17, 2013. The second amended complaint, filed on January 31, 2014, alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors by structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited subsequently from the securities' failure, lhat the securities' offering materials contained material misstatements or omissions regarding the securities' underlying assets and alleged conflicts of interest between the defendants and the investors, and asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs seek damages of approximately $138.7 million, rescission, punitive damages, and interest. On July 17, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation, which received preliminary court approval December 2, 2014. The final approval hearing is scheduled for July 2, 2015.
Other Litigation. On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. The amended complaint, filed on September 28, 2010, alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale lo plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company's individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 7, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs demand for a jury trial.
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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On August 11, 2011, plaintiffs federal securities law claims were dismissed with prejudice. On February 9, 2012, defendants' demurrers with respect to all other claims were overruled. On December 20, 2013, plaintiffs negligent misrepresentation claims were dismissed with prejudice. On January 26, 2015, the plaintiff requested dismissal with prejudice of all remaining claims against the Company in the Federal Home Ijjan Bank of San Francisco v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al. action.
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled 77ie Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribas Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiffs subsidiaries of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts
Morgan Stanley
I
I
i
I
containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiffs subsidiary by the Company was approximately SI80 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase ofsuch certificates. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On October 13, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims brought under the Securities Act. On January 27, 2012, the court substantially overruled defendants' demurrers. On March 5, 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a demurrer to certain causes of action in the second amended complaint, which the court overruled on July 24, 2012. On November 24, 2014, plaintiffs negligent misrepresentation claims were dismissed with prejudice. An initial trial of certain of plaintiffs claims is scheduled to begin in August 2015.
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 il 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.
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. A corrected amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2011. The corrected amended 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 and asserts claims under Illinois law. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by the Company at issue in the action was approximately $203 million. The complaint seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the corrected amended complaint on May 27, 2011, which was denied on September 19, 2012. On December 13, 2013, the court entered an order dismissing all claims related to one of the securitizations at issue. After that dismissal, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $78 million.
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 29, 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 plaintiffs 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 were granted in part and denied in part on September 30, 2013. On November 25, 2013 and July 16, 2014, respectively, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims against the Company with respect to two of the securitizations at issue. After these voluntary dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $358 million.
Morgan Stanley
I
I
I
J
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. On May 21, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was denied on August 3, 2012. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on January 20, 2015. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in July 2015.
On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each was styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Franklin Bank, S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleged that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raised claims under both federal securities law and the Texas Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On June 7, 2012, the two cases were consolidated. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions, which was denied in substantial part on April 26, 2013. The FDIC filed a second amended consolidated complaint on May 3, 2013. The Company filed a motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal as to the court's order denying its motion for summary judgment and special exceptions, which was denied on August 1, 2013. On October 7, 2014, the court denied the Company's motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying its motion for summary judgment and special exceptions and granted its motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying leave to file an interlocutory appeal. On November 21, 2014, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied on February 10, 2015. The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied Morgan Stanley's petition for interlocutory appeal on November 25, 2014. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in July 2015.
On January 20, 2012, Sealink Funding Limited filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") formerly sponsored by SachsenLB Europe. A second amended complaint, filed on March 20, 2013, alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the SPVs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold by the Company was approximately $507 million. The second amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On May 3, 2013, the Company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on April 18, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion. On May 1, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of that decision.
On January 25, 2012, Dexia SA/NV and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Dexia SA/NV et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 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 total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $626 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On
Morgan Stanley
I
I
October 16, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 18, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal. Plaintiffs also filed a motion to renew their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, which the court denied on June 23, 2014. On July 16, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that decision, which has been consolidated with the appeal of the motion to dismiss.
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. On October 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended 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 $1,073 billion. The amended complaint raises claims under the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law, as well as common law claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, 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 January 2, 2015, the court denied defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On August 7, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4SL (together, the "Trust") against the Company. The matter is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL, et al. v. 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 Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $303 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreement underlying the transaction, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On August 8, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.
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-I4SL, 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. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreements underlying the transactions, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. 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 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.
On August 10, 2012, the FDIC, as receiver for Colonial Bank, filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Alabama styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Colonial Bank v. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. et al. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 13, 2013. The complaint alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Colonial Bank of a mortgage pass-through certificate backed by a securitization trust containing residential loans. The complaint asserts claims under federal securities law and the Alabama Securities Act, and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages. The total amount of the certificate allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to Colonial Bank was approximately $65 million. On November 12, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was denied on April 10, 2014.
Morgan Stanley
I
I
I
On September 28, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-I3ARX against the Company styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-I3ARX v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor in interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc pending in the Supreme Court of NY. U.S. Bank filed an amended complaint on January 17, 2013, which asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $609 million, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory judgment relief, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On September 30, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the court's September 30, 2014 decision.
On December 14, 2012, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Merrill Lynch et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans totaling approximately $628 million. On October 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a new complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Morgan Stanley et al. The new complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $597 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On February 3, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On January 10, 2013, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-IOSL against the Company. The complaint is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL, 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 trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $300 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order requiring the Company to comply with the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest. On August 8, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint.
On January 31, 2013, HSH Nordbank AG and certain affiliates filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, styled HSH Nordbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiff was approximately $524 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On April 12, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On February 14, 2013, Bank Hapoalim B.M. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $141 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things,
Morgan Stanley
compensatory and punitive damages. On April 22, 2014, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss in substantial pan. On September 18, 2014, the Company filed a notice of appeal from the ruling denying defendants' motion to dismiss.
On March 7, 2013, the Federal Housing Finance Agency filed a summons with notice on behalf of the trustee of the Saxon Asset Securities Trust, Series 2007-1, against the Company and an affiliate. The matter is styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Saxon Asset Securities Trust, Series 2007-1 v. Saxon Funding Management LLC and Morgan Stanley and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $593 million, breached various representations and warranties. The notice seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, indemnity, and interest.
On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs in Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank AG el al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiff was approximately $694 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On June 10, 2014, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. On August 4, 2014, claims regarding two certificates were dismissed by stipulation. After these dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $644 million.
On May 17, 2013, plaintiff in 1KB International S.A. in Liquidation, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $132 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On October 30, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. All claims regarding four certificates were dismissed. After these dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $116 million. On December 1, 2014, the Company filed a notice of appeal from the Court's October 30, 2014 decision.
On July 2, 2013, the trustee, Deutsche Bank became the named plaintiff in Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee ofthe Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI (MSAC 2007-NCI) v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of NY under the caption Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I, Inc. On February 3, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.25 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, rescission and interest. On March 12, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
July 8, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint in Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX, by U.S. Bank National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as
Morgan Stanley
I
(
I
i
successor-by-merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. The complaint, filed in the Supreme Court of NY, asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $650 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages and interest. On August 22, 2013, the Company a filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on November 24, 2014.
On August 5, 2013, Landesbank Baden-Wiirttemberg and two affiliates filed a complaint against the Company and ceitain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Landesbank Baden-Wiirttemberg et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $50 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission based upon mutual mistake, and seeks, among other things, rescission, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. On October 4, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On August 16, 2013, the plaintiff in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts in the sale to the plaintiff 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 $567 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 California Corporate Securities Law of 1968, and violations of the Kansas Blue Sky Law and seeks, among other things, rescissionary and compensatory damages. On December 27, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in substantial part. The surviving claims relate to one certificate purchased by the plaintiff for approximately $17 million. On November 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On December 15, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in part.
On August 26, 2013, a complaint was filed against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Phoenix Light SF Limited et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs, or their assignors, of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs or their assignors by the Company was approximately $344 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation and rescission based on mutual mistake and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, punitive damages or alternatively rescission or rescissionary damages associated with the purchase of such certificates. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on December 13, 2013. On June 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. By stipulation dated July 18, 2014, the parties agreed that the Company's previously filed motion to dismiss would be deemed to be directed at the amended complaint.
On September 23, 2013, the plaintiff in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the SDNY. 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, rescissionary and compensatory
Morgan Stanley
i
i
!
i
i
i
i
damages. 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. On April 28, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to strike certain of the defendants' affirmative defenses. On July 11, 2014, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order on the motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for certification of interlocutory appeal and a stay of all proceedings, which the court denied on September 30, 2014. On November 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
On November 6, 2013, Deutsche Bank, in its capacity as trustee, became the named plaintiff in Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC3 (MSAC 2007-NC3) v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of NY under the caption Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, solely in its capacity as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC3 v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as Successor-by-Merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.3 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, rescission, interest and costs. On December 16, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On December 24, 2013, Commerzbank AG London Branch filed a summons with notice against the Company and others in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Commerzbank AG London Branch v. UBS AG et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain other entities. The complaint, which was filed on May 20, 2014, alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs assignors 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 to plaintiffs' assignors was approximately $185 million. The complaint asserts causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, and aiding and abetting common law fraud and fraudulent concealment and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on December 5, 2014.
On December 30, 2013, Wilmington Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-12, filed a complaint against the Company. The matter is styled Wilmington Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC et al. 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 trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $516 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, interest and costs. On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On January 15, 2014, the FDIC, as receiver for United Western Bank filed a complaint against the Company and others in the District Court of the State of Colorado, styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for United Western Bank v. Banc of America Funding Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to United Western Bank of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold to United Western Bank by the Company was approximately $75 million: The complaint raises claims under both federal securities law and the Colorado Securities Act and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On February 14, 2014, the defendants filed a notice removing the litigation to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On March 14, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action. On April 30, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Morgan Stanley
On April 28, 2014, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee for Morgan Stanley Structured Trust I 2007-1, filed a complaint against the Company. The matter is styled Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $735 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages, interest and costs. On July 21, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On September 19, 2014, Financial Guaranty Insurance Company ("FGIC") filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County ("Supreme Court of New York") styled Financial Guaranty Insurance Company v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. et al. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the net interest margin securities ("NIMS") in the trust breached various representations and warranties. FGIC issued a financial guaranty policy with respect to certain notes that had an original balance of approximately $475 million. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the NIM breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, reimbursement of certain payments made pursuant to the transaction documents, attorneys' fees and interest. On November 24, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On September 19, 2014, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC4, filed a summons with notice against the Company in the Supreme Court of New York styled Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, solely in its capacity as Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC4 v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor-by-merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.05 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The trustee filed its complaint on January 23, 2015, alleging breaches of representations and warranties, the repurchase obligation, and the duty to notify, and seeking, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents; compensatory, consequential, rescissory, equitable and/or punitive damages; attorneys' fees, costs and other related expenses, and interest.
On September 23, 2014, FGIC filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of New York styled Financial Guaranty Insurance Company v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. et al. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust breached various representations and warranties and defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to induce FGIC to issue a financial guaranty policy on certain classes of certificates that had an original balance of approximately $876 million. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and interest. On November 24, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Other Matters. On a case-by-case basis the Company has entered into agreements to toll the statute of limitations applicable to potential civil claims related to RMBS, CDOs and other mortgage-related products and services when the Company has concluded that it is in its interest to do so.
On October 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP (the "Law Firm"), which is purportedly representing a group of investment advisers and holders of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by RMBS trusts that were sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The letter asserted that the Law Firm's clients collectively hold 25% or more of the voting rights in 17 RMBS trusts sponsored or underwritten by the Company and that these trusts have an aggregate outstanding balance exceeding $6 billion. The letter alleged generally that large numbers of mortgages in these trusts were sold or deposited into the trusts based on false and/or fraudulent representations and warranties by the mortgage originators, sellers and/or depositors. The letter also alleged generally that there is evidence suggesting that the Company has failed prudently to service
Morgan Stanley
mortgage loans in these trusts. On January 31, 2012, the Law Finn announced that its clients hold over 25% of the voting rights in 69 RMBS trusts securing over $25 billion of RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company, and that its clients had issued instructions to the trustees of these trusts to open investigations into allegedly ineligible mortgages held by these trusts. The Law Firm's press release also indicated that the Law Firm's clients anticipate that they may provide additional instructions to the trustees, as needed, to further the investigations. On September 19, 2012, the Company received two purported Notices of Non-Performance from the Law Firm purportedly on behalf of the holders of significant voting rights in various trusts securing over $28 billion of residential mortgage backed securities sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The Notice purports to identify certain covenants in Pooling and Servicing Agreements ("PSAs") that the holders allege that the Servicer and Master Servicer failed to perform, and alleges that each of these failures has materially affected the rights of certificateholders and constitutes an ongoing event of default under the relevant PSAs. On November 2, 2012, the Company responded to the letters, denying the allegations therein.
Commercial Mortgage Related Matter.
On January 25, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in The Bank of New York Mellon Trust, National Association v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc., a litigation pending in the SDNY. The suit, brought by the trustee of a series of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, alleges that the Company breached certain representations and warranties with respect to an $81 million commercial mortgage loan that was originated and transfened to the trust by the Company. The complaint seeks, among other things, to have the Company repurchase the loan and pay additional monetary damages. On June 16, 2014, the court granted the Company's supplemental motion for summary judgment. On June 17, 2014, the court entered judgment in the Company's favor. On July 16, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
Matters Related to the CDS Market.
On July 1, 2013, the European Commission ("EC") issued a Statement of Objections ("SO") addressed to twelve financial firms (including the Company), the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. ("ISDA") and Markit Group Limited ("Markit") and various affiliates alleging that, between 2006 and 2009, the recipients breached European Union competition law by taking and refusing to take certain actions in an effort to prevent the development of exchange traded credit default swap ("CDS") products. The SO indicates that the EC plans to impose remedial measures and fines on the recipients. The Company and the other recipients of the SO filed a response to the SO on January 21, 2014, and attended oral hearings before the EC during the period May 12-19, 2014. The Company's oral hearing took place on May 15, 2014. The Company filed a supplemental response to the SO on July II, 2014. The Company and others have also responded to an investigation by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice related to the CDS market.
Beginning in May 2013, twelve financial firms (including the Company), as well as ISDA and Markit, were named as defendants in multiple purported antitrust class actions now consolidated into a single proceeding in the SDNY styled In Re: Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated United States antitrust laws from 2008 to present in connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of exchange traded CDS products. The complaints seek, among other relief, certification of a class of plaintiffs who purchased CDS from defendants in the United States, treble damages and injunctive relief. On September 4, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
The following matters were terminated during or following the quarter ended December 31, 2014:
In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation and Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al were purported class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") relating to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses. Both cases were dismissed by the SDNY and their dismissal affirmed by the Second Circuit. On December 3, 2014, the time for plaintiffs to pursue a further appeal expired.
Morgan Stanley
In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation, which had been pending in the SDNY, was a putative class action involving allegations that, among other things, the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. On December 18, 2014, the parties' agreement to settle the litigation received final court approval, and on December 19, 2014, the court entered an order dismissing the action.
In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, which had been pending in the SDNY, was a class action involving allegations that, among other things, the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. On February 3, 2015, the court issued its final approval of the parties' agreement to settle the litigation and on February 23, 2015, the court entered a final judgment dismissing the action.
Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations 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. On January 16, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
Morgan Stanley
i
I
I
i
I
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
0 QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OH THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OH 1934 For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015
OR
? TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OP THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OH 1934
Commission Hile Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact Name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212) 761-4000
(State or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive including area code)
offices, including zip code)
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes (X] No ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (ยง 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes [X] No D
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [X] Accelerated Filer Q
Non-Accelerated Filer Q Smaller reporting company fj
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ? No M
As of April 30, 2015, there were 1,970,026,803 shares of the Registrant's Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, outstanding.
Part HโOther Information. Item 1. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the "Form 10-K") and those described below, in the normal course of business, the Company has been named, from time lo 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, and involving, among other matters, sales and trading activities, financial products or offerings sponsored, underwritten or sold by the Company, and accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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 al the date of the condensed 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.
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. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings or investigations will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings and investigations where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or government 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. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings and investigations will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings or investigations could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by government 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 certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance thai additional material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or are not yet determined to be material.
Morgan Stanley
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I -- GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable:
Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc.
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
[x] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the
Applicant in Which the DiSClOSing Party holdS an interest: Morgan Stanley a Co. LLC d/b/a Morgan Stanley i Company LLC
OR
[] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
B. Business address of the Disclosing Party: 1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: 212-762-6565 Fax: 212-507-3656 Email:louis .palladino@morganstanley.com
Name of contact person: Louis Paiiadino
E. Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
F. Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II -
- DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY 1. Indicate the nature of the Disclosing Party:
[ ] Person [ ]
[ ] Publicly registered business corporation [ ]
[x] Privately held business corporation [ ]
[ ] Sole proprietorship [ ]
[ ] General partnership (Is
[ ] Limited partnership
[ ] Trust [ ]
Limited liability company Limited liability partnership Joint venture
Not-for-profit corporation
the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable:
Delaware
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ ] Yes [x] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors ofthe entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
Ifthe entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
See EXHIBIT A
2. Please provide the following infonnation concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples ofsuch an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
i I
I
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the Cily may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
Morgan Stanley 1585 Broadway 100%
Capital Management, LLC New York, NY 10036
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [x] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) ofsuch City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount ofthe fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicale whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
[x] Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [x] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Party and, if the Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have nol, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted ofa criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibility ofa business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity of a Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency ofthe federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any ofthe following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
See EXHIBIT B in lieu of response to items above
Page 6 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
None
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient.
Based on a review of Firm expenditures records, and to the best of our knowledge, information and belief, the Disclosing Party has not given a gift to any City of Chicago official or employee.
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[x] is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss ofthe privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
!
I i
I
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes [x] No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit ofthe City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., provide the names and business addresses ofthe City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. Ifthe Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
_x 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of
the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: Ifthe Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations ofthe City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
If the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director ofthe Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (3 12) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
Ifthe City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F. 1. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not lirnited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F. 1. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent of the City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F.l., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (I) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as ofthe date furnished to the City.
Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc.
(Print or type name^Discjcf^ngEarty) (Si^&re)
Louis A. Palladino, Jr.
(Print or type name of person signing)
Vice President
(Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date) ^\Jn R at /)*s~> Ijb^ld County,/?fc^j ^ /- (state)/
4^Xt^^ /^HC_ Notary Public.
Commission expires: /X jJ/^>
Page 12 of 13
WILLIAM R ROSE Attorney At Law Notary Public, State of New York No. 02RO4953501 Qualified in Nassau County Commission Expires Dec. 4, 20 AA
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as of the date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers ofthe Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B.l.a., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes |x ] No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name of the legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature of such familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
Exhibit A
Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc.
Current Appointments
Board Positions
Name ยฆยฆ
Goodman, Jeffrey Heaton, Eric Simons, Diane Gelch
Officers
-'rr
.Position
Director Director Director
Simons, Diane Gelch Creaney, Robert John Goodman, Jeffrey Heaton, Eric Mehta, Tushar Niziolek, Mamie Elizabeth Palladino, Jr., Louis A. Ratnarajah, David Schiffman, Ethan J. Jordan, Sabrina Greene, Aliah
Greeley O'Regan, Jeanne E. Dugan, Margaret T. Guth, Aaron Tyler, Jacob E.
President Vice President Vice President Vice President Vice President Vice President Vice President Vice President Vice President Treasurer Assistant Treasurer Secretary
Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [X]No
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [ ]No [x ] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of the person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address ofthe building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
!
i
I
I
Exhibit B
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Acr of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2009 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exacr name of Registrant as specified in its charier)
Delaware 1585 Broadway
(State or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices
including zip code)
Title of each class
36-3145972 (212)761-4000
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
including area code)
Name of exchange on which registered
New York Slock Exchange
New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Slock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange NYSE Amex LLC NYSE Area, Inc.
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, $0 01 par value
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Slock, Series A, SO.01
par value
6 Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
6 'A% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
53/i% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Tmst V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
6.60% Capital Secunties of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
6 60% Capital Secunties of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
6 45% Capital Secunties ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
Exchangeable Notes duc December 30, 2010; Exchangeable Notes duc June 30, 2011
BRIDGESโข due June 15,2010
Capital Protected Notes due April 20, 2010; Capital Protected Notes duc July 20,2010 (2 issuances), Capital Protected Notes duc
August 30, 2010; Capital Protected Notes due October 30, 2010; Capital Protected Notes due January 30, 2011; Capital Protected
NYSE Area, Inc.
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
NYSE Area, Inc.
NYSE Amex LLC
NYSE Amex LLC
NYSE Area, Inc.
NYSE Area, Inc.
NYSE Area, Inc. NYSE Area, Inc. NYSE Area, Inc.
NYSE Area, Inc.
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
Notes due February 20, 2011; Capital Protected Notes due March 30. 2011 (2 issuances); Capital Protected Notes due June 30. 2011;
Capital Protected Notes due August 20, 2011; Capital Protected Notes due October 30, 2011; Capital Protected Notes duc
December 30,2011; Capital Protected Notes due September 30, 2012
Capital Protected Notes duc September 1, 2010
MPSSM due June 15, 2010; MPS duc December 30, 2010, MPS due March 30, 2012
MPS duc December 30, 2010
Stock Pamcipation Notes duc September 15, 2010; Stock Participation Notes duc December 30, 2010
Buffered PLUSSM duc December 20, 2010; Buffered PLUS due March 20, 2011
PROPELSSM due December 30, 2011 (3 issuances)
Protected Absolute Return Barrier Notes due March 20, 2010, Protected Absolute Return Bamer Notes due July 20,2010; Protected
Absolute Return Bamer Notes due August 20, 2010; Protected Absolute Return Bamer Notes due March 20, 2011
Strategic Total Return Securities due July 30, 2011
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances). Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances)
Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities due March 30, 2010; Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities due July 30,
2011; Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities due January 15,2012
Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities duc October 30, 2011
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Secunties Act. YES |x] NO Q Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES O NO [x]
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter penod that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject (o such filing requirements for (he past 90 clays. YES (x| NO ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (ยง 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes |x] No D
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, lo the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K. or any amendment to this Form 10-K (x] Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. Sec the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule l2b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer (xj Accelerated Filer fj
Non-Accelerated Filer ? Smaller reporting company ?
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule I2b-2). YES ? NO [X]
As of June 30, 2009, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $38,566,093,047. This calculation docs not reflect a determination that persons arc affiliates for any other purposes.
As of January 31. 2010, ihcrc were 1,398,087,044 shares of Registrant's common stock, SO 01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated By Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2010 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.
I
j
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 olher 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 issuers that would otherwise be the primary defendants in such cases are bankrupt or in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business including, among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
The Company contests liability and/or the amount of damages as appropriate in each pending matter. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, particularly in cases where claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages or where investigations and proceedings are in the early stages, the Company cannot predict with certainty the loss or range of loss, if any, related to such matters, how or if such matters will be resolved, when they will ultimately be resolved, or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, might be. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such pending matters will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such matters could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular future period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Residential Mortgage-Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related issues including collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass through certificates.
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, which is styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. On December 9, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action, which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming the Company and certain present and former senior executives as defendants and asserting claims for violations of the securities laws. The amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al, is currently pending in the SDNY. Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in large part to the Company's subprime and olher mortgage related losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On April 27,2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Morgan Stanley
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), alleging, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of approximately $17 billion of mortgage pass through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. This case, which was consolidated with an earlier lawsuit and is currently styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litig, is pending in the SDNY. On September 15, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint which defendants have moved to dismiss.
Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained various material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued the securities and mortgage pass through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases relate to issuers that have filed for bankruptcy, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation. In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Washington Mutual, Inc. during 2006 and 2007. The Company underwrote approximately $1.6 billion of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On October 27, 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. The Company underwrote over $200 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. The Company and other defendants have moved to dismiss these claims. In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to the offerings of mortgage pass through certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. The Company underwrote over $2.4 billion of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. The Company and other defendants have moved to dismiss these claims.
Shareholder Derivative Matter. A shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the SDNY during November 2007 asserting claims related in large part to losses caused by certain subprime-related trading positions and related matters. The complaint in that lawsuit, which is styled Steve Staehr, Derivatively on Behalf of Morgan Stanley v. John J. Mack, et al, was served on the Company on February 15, 2008. On July 16, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which defendants have moved to dismiss. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution, and institution of certain corporate governance reforms.
Auction Rate Securities Matters.
On August 27, 2008, a shareholder derivative complaint, which was styled Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. Mack, et ai, was filed in the SDNY. On September 12, 2008, a second complaint, which was styled Thomas v. Mack, et al, was filed in the SDNY. The complaints were substantially similar and named as defendants the members of the Company's Board of Directors as well as ceitain current and former officers. Morgan Stanley, on whose behalf the suits were purportedly brought, is named as a nominal defendant in each action. The complaints raised claims of breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
Morgan Stanley
i
amended, related to the Company's sale of auction rate securities ("ARS") over the period from June 20, 2007 to the present. Among other things, the complaints alleged that, over the relevant period, Morgan Stanley's public filings and statements were materially false and misleading in that they failed to disclose the illiquid nature of its ARS inventories and that Morgan Stanley's practices in the sale of ARS exposed it to significant liability for settlements and judgments. The complaints also alleged that during the relevant period certain defendants sold Morgan Stanley's stock while in possession of material non-public information. The complaints sought, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution from the defendants with respect to compensation, benefits and profits obtained, and the institution of certain reforms lo Morgan Stanley's internal control functions. On November 24, 2008, the SDNY ordered the consolidation ofthe two actions. On February 2, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, styled as //; re Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. Auction Rate Securities Derivative Litigation. On June 23, 2009, the SDNY granted defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure by plaintiffs to make a pre-litigation demand on the Company's Board of Directors. In addition, the SDNY set a schedule for plaintiffs to make such a demand, for the Board of Directors to respond thereto, and for further proceedings before the SDNY, which may include a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
Executive Compensation-Related Matter.
A shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on February 11, 2010 asserting claims for waste, breach of the duty of loyalty and unjust enrichment related to the Company's executive compensation for the fiscal years ended November 30, 2006 and 2007 and the calendar year ended December 31, 2009. The complaint, which is styled Security and Fire Professionals of America Retirement Fund, et al. v. John J. Mack, et. al., names as defendants the Company's Board of Directors and ceitain present and former officers and directors. Morgan Stanley, on whose behalf the lawsuit is purportedly being brought, is named as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the total amount of the executive compensation paid for these years was disproportionately large in relation to the Company's performance. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of compensation, benefits and profits, and institution of certain corporate governance reforms.
China Matter.
As disclosed in February 2009, the Company uncovered actions initiated by an employee based in China in an overseas real estate subsidiary that appear to have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company terminated the employee, reported the activity to appropriate authorities and is cooperating with investigations by the United States Department of Justice and the SEC.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
There were no matters submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of the year ended December 31, 2009.
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2010 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact name ot Registrant as specified in us charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212) 761-4000
(Stacc or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Tide of each class which registered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing l/l,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Series A, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6 Va% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capilal Trust 111 (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6 '/4% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
5Vi% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Exchangeable Notes due June 30, 2011 NYSE Amex LLC
Capital Protected Notes due March 30, 2011 (2 issuances); Capital Protected Notes due June 30, 2011; Capital Protected
Notes due August 20,2011; Capital Protected Notes due October 30, 2011; Capital Protected Notes due December .30,
2011; Capital Protected Notes due September 30, 2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
MPSSM due March 30, 2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
Buffered PLUSSM due March 20,2011 NYSE Area, Inc.
PROPELSSM due December 30, 2011 (3 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Protected Absolute Return Barrier Notes duc March 20, 2011 NYSE Area, Inc.
Strategic Total Return Securities duc July 30, 2011 NYSE Area, Inc.
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs duc April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities due July 30, 2011; Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities due
January 15, 2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities duc October 30, 2011 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 ofthe Securities Act. YES [x] NO fj Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES ? NO |x|
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES [x] NO ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (tj 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes [x] No fj
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K. is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K. or any amendment to this Form 10-K. |xj
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule l2b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [X] Accelerated Filer Q
Non-Accelerated Filer fj Smaller reporting company O
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) Indicale by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule l2b-2). YES fj NO [X]
As of June 30, 2010, the aggregate market value ofthe common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $32,227,567,107. This calculation does not reflect a determination that persons arc affiliates for any other purposes.
As of January 31, 2011, there were 1,545,631,781 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2011 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, including, among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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 condensed 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.
In many proceedings, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount of any loss. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek substantial or indeterminate damages. Numerous issues may need to be resolved, including through potentially lengthy discovery and determination of important factual matters, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings in question, before a loss or additional loss or range of loss or additional loss can be reasonably estimated for any proceeding. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome ofsuch proceedings could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Recently, the level of litigation activity focused on residential mortgage and credit crisis related matters 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 regarding residential mortgages and related securities in the future and, while the Company has identified below certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from residential mortgage claims that have not yet been notified to the Company or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass through certificates. These matters include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's handling of foreclosure related issues, and the Company's compliance with the Service Members Civil Relief Act.
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401 (k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other
Morgan Stanley
parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, which is styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's common stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its common stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On December 9, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action, which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming the Company and certain present and former senior executives as defendants and asserting claims for violations of the securities laws. The amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., is currently pending in the SDNY. Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), alleging, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of approximately $17 billion of mortgage pass through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. This case, which was consolidated with an earlier lawsuit and is currently styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation, is pending in the SDNY. On August 17, 2010, the court dismissed the claims brought by the lead plaintiff, but gave a different plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. On September 10, 2010, that plaintiff, together with several new plaintiffs, filed a second amended complaint which purports to assert claims against the Company and others on behalf of a class of investors who purchased approximately $4.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates issued in 2006 by seven trusts collectively containing residential mortgage loans. The second amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act, and alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On October 11, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained various material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued the securities and mortgage pass through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-defendants and the
Morgan Stanley
willingness and ability of the issuers (or their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, relate to issuers (or their affiliates) lhat have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership.
In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On October 12, 2010, the court issued an order certifying a class of plaintiffs asserting claims under the Securities Act related to three offerings by Washington Mutual Inc. in 2006 and 2007 in which the Company participated as an underwriter. The Company underwrote approximately $1.3 billion of the securities covered by the class certified by the court.
In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. The Company underwrote approximately $232 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On June 5, 2010, the underwriter defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed by the lead plaintiffs.
In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to offerings of mortgage pass through certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. The Company underwrote over $1.4 billion ofthe principal amount ofthe offerings originally at issue. On June 21, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint. The Company underwrote approximately $46 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue following the court's June 21, 2010 decision. On May 17, 2010, certain putative plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene in the litigation in order to assert claims related to additional offerings. The Company underwrote approximately $1.2 billion of the principal amount of the additional offerings subject to the motion to intervene. The Company is opposing the motion to intervene.
On December 24, 2009, the Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands filed a purported class action against the Company on behalf of holders of approximately $250 million of AAA rated notes issued by the Libertas III CDO in March 2007. The case is styled Employees' Retirement System of the Government ofthe Virgin Islands v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud and unjust enrichment and alleges that the Company made misrepresentations regarding the AAA ratings of the CDO notes and the credit quality of the collateral held by the Libertas III CDO, and stood to gain if that collateral defaulted. The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief, fees and costs. On March 19, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Shareholder Derivative Matter. On November 15, 2007, a shareholder derivative complaint styled Steve Staehr, Derivatively on Behalf of Morgan Stanley v. John J. Mack, et al. was filed in the SDNY asserting claims related in large part to losses caused by certain subprime-related trading positions and related matters. On July 16, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss on September 19, 2008. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution, and institution of certain corporate governance reforms.
Other Litigation. On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Cheyne Finance (the "Cheyne SIV"). The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime residential mortgage backed securities held by the SIV. On September 2, 2009, the court dismissed all of the claims against the Company except for plaintiffs' claims for common law fraud. On June 15, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 20, 2010, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to replead their aiding and abetting common law fraud claims against the Company, and those claims were added in an amended complaint filed on August 5, 2010. Since the filing of the initial complaint, various additional plaintiffs have been added to
Morgan Stanley
the case. There are currently 14 plaintiffs asserting individual claims related to securities issued by the SIV. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and arc seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
On January 16, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in an interpleader lawsuit styled U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Barclays Bank PLC and Morgan Stanley Capital Services Inc., which is pending in the SDNY. The lawsuit relates to credit default swaps between the Company and Tourmaline CDO I LTD ("Tourmaline"), in which Barclays Bank PLC ("Barclays") is the holder of the most senior and controlling class of notes. At issue is whether, pursuant to the terms of the swap agreements, the Company was required to post collateral to Tourmaline, or take any other action, after the Company's credit ratings were downgraded in 2008 by certain ratings agencies. The Company and Barclays have a dispute regarding whether the Company breached any obligations under the swap agreements and, if so, whether any such breaches were cured. The trustee for Tourmaline, interpleader plaintiff U.S. Bank, N.A., has refrained from making any further distribution of Tourmaline's funds pending the resolution of these issues and is seeking a judgment from the court resolving them. On January 11, 2011, the court conducted a bench trial, but has not yet issued its ruling. As of December 31, 2010, the Company believed that it was entitled to receivables from Tourmaline in an amount equal to approximately $273 million.
On September 25, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit styled Citibank, N.A. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International, PLC, which is pending in the SDNY. The lawsuit relates to a credit default swap referencing the Capmark VI CDO, which was structured by Citibank, N.A. ("Citi N.A."). At issue is whether, as part of the swap agreement, Citi N.A. was obligated to obtain the Company's prior written consent before it exercised its rights to liquidate Capmark upon the occurrence of certain contractually-defined credit events. Citi N.A. is seeking approximately $245 million in compensatory damages plus interest and costs. On October 8, 2010, the court issued an order denying Citi N.A.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Company's counterclaim for reformation and granting Citi N.A.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Company's counterclaim for estoppel. The Company moved for summary judgment on December 17, 2010. Citi N.A. opposed the Company's motion and cross moved for summary judgment on January 21, 2011.
On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 28, 2010. The complaint 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action.
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 ai, and Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. et al., respectively. Amended complaints were filed on June 10, 2010. The complaints 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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On July 12, 2010, defendants removed these actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on December 20, 2010, the cases were remanded to the state court.
On June 10, 2010, the Company was named as a new defendant in a pre-existing purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Rhinebridge pic ("Rhinebridge SIV"). The case is styled King County, Washington, et al. v. 1KB Deutsche Industriebank AG, et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint asserts
Morgan Stanley
I
claims for common law fraud and aiding and abetting common law fraud and alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime residential mortgage backed securities held by the SIV. On July 15, 2010, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint. That motion was denied on October 29, 2010. The case is pending before the same judge presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV, described above. While reserving their ability to act otherwise, plaintiffs have indicated that they do not currently plan to file a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
On July 9, 2010, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, styled Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of certain of plaintiffs clients and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale of a number of 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's clients by the Company was approximately $242 million. The complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On August 13, 2010, defendants removed this action to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and on September 13, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the state court. On December 28, 2010, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant the motion to remand. The defendants objected to the magistrate's report and recommendation on January 18, 2011.
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribas Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiffs subsidiaries of a number of mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiffs subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On September 8, 2010, defendants removed this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and on October 1, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the state court.
In July 15, 2010, China Industrial Development Bank ("CIDB") filed a complaint against the Company, which is styled China Industrial Development Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. 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 CIDB, and that the Company knew that the assets backing the CDO were of poor quality when it entered into the credit default swap with CIDB. The complaint seeks compensatory damages related to the approximately $228 million that CIDB alleges it has already lost under the credit default swap, rescission of CIDB's obligation to pay an additional $12 million, punitive damages, equitable relief, fees and costs. On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed two complaints against the Company and other defendants. One was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois and is styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. The other was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California and is styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et at. The complaints allege 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 the two actions was approximately $203 million and $75 million respectively. The complaint filed in Illinois raises claims
Morgan Stanley
I
! i
under Illinois law. The complaint filed in California raises claims under the federal securities laws, Illinois law and California law. Both complaints seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. The defendants removed both actions to federal court, on November 23, 2010 and November 24, 2010, respectively. On January 18, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois remanded the Illinois action to the slate court. On December 23, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the California action from the United States District Court for the Central District of California to the state court.
On December 6, 2010, MBIA Insurance Corporation ("MBIA") filed a complaint against the Company related to MBIA's contract to insure approximately $223 million of residential mortgage backed securities related to a second lien residential mortgage backed securitization sponsored by the Company in June 2007. The complaint is styled MBIA Insurance Corporation v. Morgan Stanley, et al. and is pending in New York Supreme Court, Westchester County. The complaint asserts claims for fraud, breach of contract and unjust enrichment and alleges, among other things, that the Company misled MBIA regarding the quality of the loans contained in the securitization, that loans contained in the securitization breached various representations and warranties and that the loans have been serviced inadequately. The complaint seeks, among other relief, compensatory and punitive damages, an order requiring the Company to comply with the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents and/or to indemnify MBIA for losses resulting from the Company's alleged breach ofthe transaction documents, as well as costs, interests and fees. On February 2, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
China Matter.
As disclosed in February 2009, the Company uncovered actions initiated by an employee based in China in an overseas real estate subsidiary that appear to have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company terminated the employee, reported the activity to appropriate authorities and is cooperating with investigations by the United States Department of Justice and the SEC.
Item 4. [Removed and Reserved]
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2011 Coinmission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212) 761-4000
(Sure or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Title of each class which regisrered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Series A, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6 Va% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6 Vt% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Yi% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty wilh respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Capital Protected Notes duc September 30, 2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
MPSSM due March 30, 2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) ... NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley Cushingยฎ MLP High Income Index ETNs due March 21,2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Crude Oil Linked ETNs due July 1, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 ofthe Securities Act. YES [X] NO f_J
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 1.3 or 15(d) of the Act. YES ? NO (X)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES [x] NO ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES [x] NO ?
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K. or any amendment to this Form 10-K. fj
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [x] Accelerated Filer Q
Non-Accelerated Filer fj Smaller reporting company ?
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES ? NO [x]
As of June 30, 2011, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $44,205,856,161. This calculation docs not reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of January 31, 2012, there were 1,978,6.34,958 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2012 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 ofthe 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, including, among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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.
In many proceedings, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount of any loss. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek substantial or indeterminate damages. 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, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings in question, before a loss or additional loss or range of loss or additional loss can be reasonably estimated for any proceeding. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity focused on residential mortgage and credit crisis related matters 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 regarding residential mortgages and related securities in the future and, while the Company has identified below certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from residential mortgage claims that have not yet been notified to the Company or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS"), collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass through certificates. These matters include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's disclosures to investors, and the Company's handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other
Morgan Stanley
parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, which is styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's common stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its common stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On December 9, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et ai, was filed in the SDNY asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The complaint alleges, among olher things, that defendants knew or should have known that from January 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008, the plans' investment in Company stock was imprudent given the extraordinary risks faced by the Company and its common stock during that period. Plaintiffs are seeking, among Other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On July 20, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on October 28, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action, which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming the Company and certain present and former senior executives as defendants and asserting claims for violations of the securities laws. The amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., is currently pending in the SDNY. Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in large part to the Company's subprime and Other mortgage related losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 4, 2011, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint with respect to certain of their allegations. On June 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in response to the court's order of April 4, 2011. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), alleging, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of approximately $17 billion of mortgage pass through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. This case, which was consolidated with an earlier lawsuit and is currently styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation, is pending in the SDNY. On August 17, 2010, the court dismissed the claims brought by the lead plaintiff, but gave a different plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. On September 10, 2010, that plaintiff, together with several new plaintiffs, filed a second amended complaint which purported to assert claims against the Company and others on behalf of a class of investors who purchased approximately $4.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates issued in 2006 by seven trusts collectively containing residential mortgage loans. The second amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act, and alleged, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On September 15, 2011, the court granted in
Morgan Stanley
part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' request to file another amended complaint. On September 29, 2011, the defendants moved for reconsideration ofa portion ofthe court's decision partially denying the motion to dismiss. On September 30, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint purporting to bring claims on behalf of a class of investors who purchased approximately S2.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates issued in 2006 by five trusts. The defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on October 17, 2011.
Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued or sponsored the securities and mortgage pass through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, relate to issuers or sponsors (or their affiliates) that have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership.
In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. The Company underwrote approximately $232 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On September 23, 2011, a group of underwriter defendants, including the Company, reached an agreement in principle with the class plaintiffs to settle the litigation. On December 15, 2011, the Court presiding over this action issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. The settlement hearing is currently scheduled for April 12, 2012.
In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to offerings of mortgage pass through certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. The Company underwrote over $ 1.4 billion of the principal amount of the offerings originally at issue. On June 21, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint. The Company underwrote approximately $46 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue following the court's June 21, 2010 decision. On May 17, 2010, certain putative plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene in the litigation in order to assert claims related to additional offerings. The principal amount of the additional offerings underwritten by the Company is approximately $1.2 billion. On June 21, 2011, the Company successfully opposed the motion to add the additional plaintiffs as to the Company. On July 20, 2011 and July 21, 2011, certain of the additional plaintiffs filed appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company is opposing the appeals.
Luther, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, involves claims related to the Company's role as an underwriter of various residential mortgage backed securities offerings issued by affiliates of Countrywide Financial Corporation. The amended complaint includes allegations that the registration statements and the offering documents contained false and misleading statements about the residential mortgage loans backing the securities. The Company underwrote approximately $6.3 billion of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On January 6, 2010, the Court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On May 18, 2011, a California court of appeals reversed the dismissal and reinstated the complaint. On December 19, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On February 3, 2012, defendants moved to stay the case pending resolution of a securities class action brought by the same plaintiffs, styled Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Morgan Stanley
Other Litigation. On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were named as defendants in a puq?orted class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Cheyne Finance (the "Cheyne SIV"). The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. On September 2, 2009, the court dismissed all of the claims against the Company except for plaintiffs' claims for common law fraud. On June 15, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 20, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs leave to replead their aiding and abetting common law fraud claims against the Company, and those claims were added in an amended complaint filed on August 5, 2010. On December 27, 2011, the court permitted plaintiffs to reinstate their causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty against the Company. The Company moved to dismiss these claims on January 10, 2012. On January 5, 2012, the court permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint and assert a negligence claim against the Company. The amended complaint was filed on January 9, 2012 and the Company moved to dismiss the negligence claim on January 17, 2012. On January 23, 2012, the Company moved for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. There are 15 plaintiffs in this action asserting claims related to approximately $983 million of securities issued by the SIV.
On September 25, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit styled Citibank, N.A. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International, PLC, pending in the SDNY. The lawsuit relates to a credit default swap referencing the Capmark VI CDO, which was structured by Citibank, N.A. ("Citi N.A."). At issue is whether, as part of the swap agreement, Citi N.A. was obligated to obtain the Company's prior written consent before it exercised its rights to liquidate Capmark upon the occurrence of certain contractually-defined credit events. Citi N.A. is seeking approximately $245 million in compensatory damages plus interest and costs. On May 25, 2011, the court issued an order denying the Company's motion for summary judgment and granting Citi N.A.'s cross motion for summary judgment. On June 27, 2011, the court entered a final judgment against the Company for approximately $269 million plus post-judgment interest, and the Company filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which appeal is now pending.
On December 14, 2009, Central Mortgage Company ("CMC") filed a complaint against the Company, in a matter styled Central Mortgage Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleged that that Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC improperly refused to repurchase certain mortgage loans that CMC, as servicer, was required to repurchase from the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") and the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"). On November 4, 2011, CMC filed an amended complaint adding claims related to its purchase of servicing rights in connection with approximately $4.1 billion of residential loans deposited into RMBS trusts sponsored by the Company. The amended complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, quasi-contract, equitable and tort claims and seeks compensatory damages and equitable remedies, including rescission, injunctive relief, damages, restitution and disgorgement. On January 9, 2012, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
Morgan Stanley
On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 28, 2010. The complaint 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 201 Land July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company's individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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 were filed on June 10, 2010. The complaints 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 April 18, 2011, defendants in these actions filed an omnibus demurrer and motion to strike the amended complaints. On July 29, 2011 and September 8, 2011, the court presiding over both actions sustained defendants' demurrers with respect to claims brought under the Securities Act, and overruled defendants' demurrers with respect to all other claims.
On June 10, 2010, the Company was named as a new defendant in a pre-existing purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Rhinebridge pic ("Rhinebridge SIV"). The case is styled King County, Washington, et al. v. 1KB Deutsche Industriebank AG, et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud and aiding and abetting common law fraud and alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. On July 15, 2010, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint. That motion was denied on October 29, 2010. On December 27, 2011, the court permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint and assert causes of action for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty against the Company. The amended complaint was filed on January 10, 2012 and the Company moved to dismiss the negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty claims on January 31, 2012. The case is pending before the same judge presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV, described above. While reserving their ability to act otherwise, plaintiffs have indicated that they do not currently plan to file a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
On July 9, 2010, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, styled Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of certain clients of plaintiff s affiliates and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale ofa number of 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 plaintiffs affiliates' clients by the Company was approximately $242 million. The complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff s purchase of such certificates. On February 11, 2011, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed a second complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts also styled Cambridge Place
Morgan Stanley
Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. et al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of clients of plaintiff's affiliates, and alleges that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in selling certain mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued or underwritten by the Company or sold to plaintiff's affiliates' clients by the Company was approximately $102 million. The complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase ofsuch certificates. On October 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in each action. On November 22, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaints.
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BMP Paribus Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiff s subsidiaries 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's subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On October 13, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims brought under the Securities Act. On January 27, 2012, the court, in a ruling from the bench, substantially overruled defendants' demurrers.
On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank ("CDIB") filed a complaint against the Company, which is styled China Development Industrial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. 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 September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 28, 2011, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 21, 2011, the Company appealed the order denying its motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 7, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision denying the Company's motion to dismiss.
On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed two complaints against the Company and other defendants. One was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois and is styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. The other was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California and is styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. The complaints allege 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 the two actions was approximately $203 million and $75 million respectively. The complaint filed in Illinois raises claims under Illinois law. The complaint filed in California raises claims under the federal securities laws, Illinois law and California law. Both complaints seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On March 24, 2011, the Court presiding over Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On May 27, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion is currently pending. On September 15, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. On December 1, 2011, defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which demurrer is currently pending.
Morgan Stanley
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. The complaint 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 $550 million. The 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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On May 26, 2011, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and on June 22, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to state court.
On July 5, 2011, Allstate Insurance Company and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in New York State Supreme Court styled Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint 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 and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $104 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases ofsuch certificates. On September 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On October 14, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion is currently pending.
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. The complaint 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 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.
On September 2, 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, filed 17 complaints against numerous financial services companies, including the Company. A complaint against the Company and other defendants was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $11 billion. The complaint raises claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and seeks, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On September 26, 2011, defendants removed the action to the SDNY and on October 26, 2011, the FHFA moved to remand the action back to the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
On September 2, 2011, the FHFA, as conservator for Freddie Mac, also filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. General Electric Company et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $549 million. The complaint raises claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and seeks, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On October 6, 2011, defendants removed the action to the SDNY and on November 7, 2011, the FHFA moved to remand the action back to the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each is styled Federal Deposit
Morgan Stanley
Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raise claims under both federal securities law and the Texas Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated wilh plaintiff's purchase of such certificates.
On January 20, 2012, Sealink Funding Limited filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York styled Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") formerly sponsored by SachsenLB Europe. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the SPVs of certain mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold by the Company was approximately $556 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates.
On January 25, 2012, Dexia SA/NV and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York styled Dexia SA/NV et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint 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 total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $680 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates.
On January 25, 2012, Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York styled Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint 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 and/or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $486 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates.
Other Matters. On a case-by-case basis the Company has entered into agreements to toll the statute of limitations applicable to potential civil claims related to RMBS, CDOs and other mortgage-related products and services when the Company has concluded that it is in its interest to do so.
On October 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP (the "Law Firm"), which is purportedly representing a group of investment advisers and holders of mortgage pass through certificates issued by RMBS trusts that were sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The letter asserted that the Law Finn's clients collectively hold 25% or more of the voting rights in 17 RMBS trusts sponsored or underwritten by the Company and that these trusts have an aggregate outstanding balance exceeding $6 billion. The letter alleged generally that large numbers of mortgages in these trusts were sold or deposited into the trusts based on false and/or fraudulent representations and warranties by the mortgage originators, sellers and/or depositors. The letter also alleged generally that there is evidence suggesting that the Company has failed prudently to service mortgage loans in these trusts. On January 31, 2012, the Law Firm announced that its clients hold over 25% of the voting rights in 69 RMBS trusts securing over $25 billion of RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company, and that its clients had issued instructions to the trustees of these trusts to open investigations into
Morgan Stanley
allegedly ineligible mortgages held by these trusts. The Law Finn's press release also indicated that the Law Firm's clients anticipate that they may provide additional instructions lo the trustees, as needed, to further the investigations.
Shareholder Derivative Matter.
On February 11, 2010, a shareholder derivative complaint styled Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America Retirement Fund, et al. v. John J. Mack et al. was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The complaint is purportedly for the benefit of the Company, and is brought against certain cunent and former directors and officers of the Company, to recover damages for alleged acts of corporate waste, breaches of the duty of loyalty, and unjust enrichment based on the amount of compensation awarded to an undefined group of employees for fiscal years 2006, 2007 and 2009. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of compensation, benefits and profits, and institution of certain corporate governance reforms. On December 9, 2010, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and on February 4, 2011, plaintiffs noticed an appeal of that dismissal, which appeal is pending.
China Matter.
As disclosed in February 2009, the Company uncovered actions initiated by an employee based in China in an overseas real estate subsidiary that appear to have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company terminated the employee, reported the activity to appropriate authorities and is cooperating with investigations by the United States Department of Justice and the SEC.
The following matters were terminated during the quarter ended December 31, 2011:
In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, which had been pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, involved claims under the Securities Act related to three offerings by Washington Mutual Inc. in 2006 and 2007. The Company was one of several underwriters who participated in the offerings. The Company underwrote approximately $1.3 billion ofthe securities covered by the class certified by the court. On November 4, 2011, a final settlement among the parties was approved by the court.
Employees' Retirement System of the Government ofthe Virgin Islands v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et al, which had been pending in the SDNY, involved claims for common law fraud and unjust enrichment against the Company related to the Libertas III CDO. On November 3, 2011, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice.
MBIA Insurance Corporation v. Morgan Stanley, et al. which had been pending in New York Supreme Court, Westchester County, involved claims for fraud, breach of contract and unjust enrichment against the Company related to MBIA Insurance Corporation's ("MBIA's") contract to insure approximately $223 million of residential mortgage pass through certificates related a second lien securitization sponsored by the Company in June 2007. On December 13, 2011, the Company and MBIA entered into an agreement to settle this litigation and to resolve certain claims that the Company had against MBIA.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2012 Commission File Number 1-1 1758
Morgan Stanley
(Exacr name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 1535 Broadway 36-3145972 (212) 761-4000
(State or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Title of each class which registered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) ofthe Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1 /1,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Scries A, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6 '/4% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6 Vt% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
5 Vi% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley Cushingยฎ MLP High Income Index ETNs due March 21, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Crude Oil Linked ETNs due July 1, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES [x] NO fj
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Act. YES f_H NO [x]
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required lo file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES [X] NO ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES (x] NO fj
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. (X|
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one);
Large Accelerated Filer [X] Accelerated Filer fj
Non-Accelerated Filer ? Smaller reporting company fj
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES fj NO [x]
As of June 29, 2012, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-afliliates of Registrant was approximately $28,757,715,880. This calculation does not reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of February 5, 2013, there were 1,961,257,664 shares of Registrant's common stock. S0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2013 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, and involving, among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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.
In many proceedings, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount of any loss. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek substantial or indeterminate damages. 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, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings in question, before a loss or additional loss or range of loss or additional loss can be reasonably estimated for any proceeding. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity focused on residential mortgage and credit crisis related matters 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 regarding residential mortgages and related securities in the future and, while the Company has identified below certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from residential mortgage claims that have not yet been notified to the Company or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS"), collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass-through certificates. These matters include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's disclosures to investors, and the Company's handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.
Morgan Stanley
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401 (k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's common stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its common stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On March 26, 2012, defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the complaint.
On March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al., was filed in the SDNY asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants knew or should have known that from January 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008, the plans' investment in Company stock was imprudent given the extraordinary risks faced by the Company and its common stock during that period. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On July 20, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on October 28, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On February 12, 2008, a purported class action, styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et ai, was filed in the SDNY against the Company and certain present and former executives asserting claims on behalf ofa purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result ofsuch purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint related in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also included allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January 18, 2013. On February 14, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit").
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), which is now styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation and is pending in the SDNY. The third amended complaint, filed on September 30, 2011, alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of ceitain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On January 11, 2013, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration which sought to expand the offerings at issue in the litigation based on recent precedent from the Second Circuit. On January 31, 2013, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint, in which they purport to represent investors who purchased approximately $7.82 billion in mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2006 by 14 trusts.
Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass-through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification,
Morgan Stanley
unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued or sponsored the securities and mortgage pass-through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases, including In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, relate to issuers or sponsors (or their affiliates) that have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership.
In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. The Company underwrote approximately $232 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. A group of underwriter defendants, including the Company, settled the main litigation on December 2, 2012. The underwriter defendants, including the Company, continue to defend claims by investors who opted out of the settlement or who purchased securities not covered by the settlement.
In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to offerings of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. On June 21, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint. The Company underwrote approximately $46 million of the principal amount of the offerings currently at issue. In July 2011, certain putative additional plaintiffs appealed the court's June 2011 order denying the motion to add them as additional plaintiffs as to the Company. The Company is opposing the appeals. On August 17, 2012, the court granted class certification. On October 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to expand the offerings at issue in the litigation, relying on recent precedent from the Second Circuit. Defendants have opposed the motion. If the motion is granted and the offerings are included in the class that is certified, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company at issue in the litigation will be approximately $1.68 billion.
Luther, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, was filed on November 14, 2007 and involves claims related to the Company's role as an underwriter of various residential mortgage backed securities offerings issued by affiliates of Countrywide Financial Corporation. The amended complaint includes allegations that the registration statements and the offering documents contained false and misleading statements about the residential mortgage loans backing the securities. The Company underwrote approximately $6.3 billion of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On December 19, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. In February 2012, defendants moved to stay the case pending resolution of a securities class action brought by the same plaintiffs, styled Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In June 2012, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The motion to remand the matter was denied in August 2012.
Other Litigation. On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Cheyne Finance PLC and Cheyne Finance LLC (together, the "Cheyne SIV"). The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. The plaintiffs currently assert allegations of aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation relating to approximately $852 million of securities issued by the Cheyne SIV. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in June 2010. The court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment on the aiding and abetting fraud claim in August 2012. The Company's motion for summary judgment on the negligent misrepresentation claim, filed on November 30, 2012, is pending. The court has set a trial date of May 6, 2013. There are currently 14 named plaintiffs in the action claiming damages of approximately $638 million, as well as punitive damages.
Morgan Stanley
On December 14, 2009, Central Mortgage Company ("CMC") filed a complaint against the Company, in a matter styled Central Mortgage Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleged that that Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC improperly refused to repurchase certain mortgage loans that CMC, as servicer, was required to repurchase from the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Coiporation ("Freddie Mac") and the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"). On November 4, 2011, CMC filed an amended complaint adding claims related to its purchase of servicing rights in connection with approximately $4.1 billion of residential loans deposited into RMBS trusts sponsored by the Company. The amended complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, quasi-contract, equitable and tort claims and seeks compensatory damages and equitable remedies, including rescission, injunctive relief, damages, restitution and disgorgement. On August 7, 2012, the court granted in part the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. The amended complaint, filed on September 28, 2010, 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company's individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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 were filed on June 10, 2010. The amended complaints 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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On July 29, 2011 and September 8, 2011, the court presiding over both actions sustained defendants' demurrers with respect to claims brought under the Securities Act, and overruled defendants' demurrers with respect to all other claims. ,
On June 10, 2010, the Company was named as a new defendant in a pre-existing action related to securities issued by a SIV called Rhinebridge PLC and Rhinebridge LLC (together, the "Rhinebridge SIV"). The case is styled King County, Washington, et al. v. 1KB Deutsche Industriebank AG, et al. and is pending in the SDNY before the same judge presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV, described above. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence on May 4, 2012. On September 7, 2012, the Company moved for summary judgment with respect to the remaining claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and aiding and abetting fraud. On January 3, 2013, the court granted the motion for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims and denied it with respect to the aiding and abetting fraud claim. The two named plaintiffs claim approximately $65 million in lost principal and interest, as well as punitive damages.
On July 9, 2010 and February 11, 2011, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed two separate complaints against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, both styled Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et
Morgan Stanley
al. The complaints assert claims on behalf of certain clients of plaintiffs affiliates and allege lhat defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale of a number of 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's affiliates' clients by the Company in the two matters was approximately $344 million. The complaints raise claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act and seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On October 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in each action. On November 22, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaints. On March 12, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs standing to bring suit. Defendants sought interlocutory appeal from that decision on April 11, 2012. On April 26, 2012, defendants filed a second motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which the court denied, in substantial part, on October 2, 2012.
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribas Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiff s subsidiaries 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's subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On October 13, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims brought under the Securities Act. On January 27, 2012, the court, in a ruling from the bench, substantially overruled defendants' demurrers. On March 5, 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a demurrer to certain causes of action in the second amended complaint, which the court overruled on July 24, 2012.
On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank ("CDIB") filed a complaint against the Company, which is styled China Development Industrial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County ("Supreme Court of NY, NY County"). 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 September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 28, 2011, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 7, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision denying the Company's motion to dismiss.
On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed two complaints against the Company and other defendants. One was filed 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 other was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. The complaints allege 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 the two actions was approximately $203 million and $75 million respectively. The complaint filed in Illinois raises claims under Illinois law. The complaint filed in California raises claims under the federal securities laws, Illinois law and California law. Both complaints seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On March 24, 2011, the court presiding over Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. .granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On May 27, 2011,
Morgan Stanley
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was denied on September 19, 2012. The Company filed its answer on December 21, 2012. On September 15, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. On December 1,
2011, defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on statute of limitations and statute of repose
grounds, which demurrer was overruled on June 28, 2012. On August 31, 2012, defendants filed demurrers on
the merits of the complaint.
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 $550 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.
On July 5, 2011, Allstate Insurance Company and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 9, 2011 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 and/ or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $104 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On October 14, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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 ofsuch certificates. On May 21,
2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was denied on August 3,
2012. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in November 2013.
On September 2, 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, filed 17 complaints against numerous financial services companies, including the Company. A complaint against the Company and other defendants was filed in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass-through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $11 billion. The complaint raises claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and seeks, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On September 26, 2011, defendants removed the action to the SDNY and on October 26, 2011, the FHFA moved to remand the action back to the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. On May 11, 2012, plaintiff withdrew its motion to remand. On July 13, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which motion was denied in large part on November 19, 2012. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in January 2015.
Morgan Stanley
I
I
I I
I
I
i
i
I
i
I
On September 2, 2011, the FHFA, as conservator for Freddie Mac, also filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. General Electric Company et al. The complaint alleged that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass-through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $549 million. The complaint raised claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and sought, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On October 6, 2011, defendants removed the action to the SDNY. On January 22, 2013, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to all defendants.
On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each was styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleged that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raised claims under both federal securities law and the Texas Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On March 20, 2012, the Company filed answers to the complaints in both cases. On June 13, 2012, the Company removed the cases to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On June 21, 2012, the Company moved to transfer the action to the SDNY. On November 27, 2012, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the action to Texas state court and denied the Company's motion to transfer the case to New York. On January 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions with respect to plaintiffs claims. On February 6, 2013, the FDIC filed an amended consolidated complaint.
On January 20, 2012, Sealink Funding Limited filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") formerly sponsored by SachsenLB Europe. An amended complaint was filed on May 21, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the SPVs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold by the Company was approximately $507 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On September 7, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On January 25, 2012, Dexia SA/NV and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Dexia SA/NV et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 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 total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $626 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/ or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On August 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On January 25, 2012, Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 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 and/or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $411 million. The amended complaint raises common
Morgan Stanley
law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other tilings, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On July 27, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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 ofthe 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 January 23, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On April 25, 2012, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and ceitain affiliates filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on June 29, 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 total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company was approximately $758 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, rescission, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages, as well as punitive damages, associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On September 21, 2012,-the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On August 7, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4SL (together, the 'Trust") against the Company. The matter is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $303 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreement underlying the transaction, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On October 8, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
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, NY County. 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. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreements underlying the transactions, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On October 9, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On August 10, 2012, the FDIC, as receiver for Colonial Bank, filed two complaints against the Company in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Alabama. The first action is styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as
Morgan Stanley
Receiver for Colonial Bank v. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. et al. and alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Colonial Bank of a mortgage pass-through certificate backed by a securitization trust containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of the certificate allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to Colonial Bank was approximately $65 million. On September 12, 2012, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, and on October 12, 2012, plaintiff moved to remand the case to stale court. The second action is styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Colonial Bank v. Countrywide Securities Corporation et al. and alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Colonial Bank 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 to Colonial Bank was approximately $144 million. On September 10, 2012, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, and on September 21, 2012, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On October 11, 2012, plaintiff moved to remand the case back to state court, which motion was denied on December 7, 2012. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 22, 2013. The complaints each raise claims under federal securities law and the Alabama Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with Colonial Bank's purchase of such certificates.
On September 28, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX against the Company styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-J3ARX v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor in interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., pending in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. U.S. Bank filed an amended complaint on January 17, 2013, which asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $609 million, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory judgment relief, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest.
On October 5, 2012, a complaint was filed against the Company and others in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Phoenix Light SF Limited et al v. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs, or their assignors, of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs or their assignors by the Company was approximately $344 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation and rescission based on mutual mistake and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, punitive damages or alternatively rescission or rescissionary damages associated with the purchase of such certificates. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on December 14, 2012.
On May 1, 2012, Asset Management Fund d/b/a AMF Funds and certain of its affiliated funds filed a summons with notice against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Asset Management Fund d/b/a AMF Funds et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $122 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common-law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages and rescission. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on October 22, 2012. On December 3, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On November 16, 2012, 1KB International S.A. and an affiliate filed a summons with notice against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled 1KB International S.A. In
Morgan Stanley
Liquidation v. Morgan Stanley et al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $147 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation as well as contract claims. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages, and rescission.
On November 21, 2012, Deutsche Zentral Genossenshaftsbank AG and an affiliate filed a summons with notice against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Deutsche Zentral Genossenshaftsbank AG, New York Branch, d/b/a DZ Bank AG New York Branch v. Morgan Stanley et al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $694 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation as well as contract claims. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages, and rescission.
On November 28, 2012, Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of an unspecified amount of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiff s purchases of such certificates. On February 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On December 14, 2012, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Merrill Lynch et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $628 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting fraud, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages.
On January 10, 2013, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-IOSL against the Company. The complaint is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL, 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, NY County. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $300 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order requiring the Company to comply with the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest.
On January 25, 2013, tlie FHFA filed a summons wilh notice on behalf of the Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI, against the Company. The matter is styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 007-NCI v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.25 billion,
Morgan Stanley
breached various representations and warranties. The notice seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest.
On January 30, 2013, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a summons with notice on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX against the Company. The matter is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX, by U.S. Bank National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor-by-merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, lhat the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $650 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest.
On August 24, 2012, HSH Nordbank AG and certain affiliates filed a summons with notice against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled HSH Nordbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley el al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiff was approximately $524 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages, and rescission. An amended summons with notice was filed on November 28, 2012.
On August 29, 2012, Bank Hapoalim B.M. filed a summons with notice against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $141 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages, and rescission. An amended summons with notice was filed on December 4, 2012.
Other Matters. On a case-by-case basis the Company has entered into agreements to toll the statute of limitations applicable to potential civil claims related to RMBS, CDOs and other mortgage-related products and services when the Company has concluded that it is in its interest to do so.
On October 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP (the "Law Firm"), which is purportedly representing a group of investment advisers and holders of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by RMBS trusts that were sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The letter asserted that the Law Firm's clients collectively hold 25% or more of the voting rights in 17 RMBS trusts sponsored or underwritten by the Company and that these trusts have an aggregate outstanding balance exceeding $6 billion. The letter alleged generally that large numbers of mortgages in these trusts were sold or deposited into the trusts based on false and/or fraudulent representations and warranties by the mortgage originators, sellers and/or depositors. The letter also alleged generally that there is evidence suggesting that the Company has failed prudently to service mortgage loans in these trusts. On January 31, 2012, the Law Firm announced that its clients hold over 25% of the voting rights in 69 RMBS trusts securing over $25 billion of RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company, and that its clients had issued instructions to the trustees of these trusts to open investigations into allegedly ineligible mortgages held by these trusts. The Law Firm's press release also indicated that the Law Firm's clients anticipate that they may provide additional instructions to the trustees, as needed, to further the investigations. On September 19, 2012, the Company received two purported Notices of Non-Performance from the Law Firm purportedly on behalf of the holders of significant voting rights in various trusts securing over $28 billion of residential mortgage backed securities sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The Notice purports
Morgan Stanley
to identify certain covenants in Pooling and Servicing Agreements ("PSAs") that the holders allege that the Servicer and Master Servicer failed to perform, and alleges that each of these failures has materially affected the rights of certificate holders and constitutes an ongoing event of default under the relevant PSAs. On November 2, 2012, the Company responded to the letters, denying the allegations therein.
On April 2, 2012, the Company entered into a Consent Order (the "Order") with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the "Federal Reserve") relating to the servicing of residential mortgage loans. The terms of the Order are substantially similar and, in many respects, identical to the orders entered into with the Federal Reserve by other large U.S. financial institutions. The Order, which is available on the Federal Reserve's website, sets forth various allegations of improper conduct in servicing by Saxon, requires that the Company and its affiliates cease and desist such conduct, and requires that the Company, and its Board of Directors and affiliates, take various affirmative steps. The Order requires (i) the Company to engage an independent third-party consultant to conduct a review of ceitain foreclosure actions or proceedings that occurred or were pending between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010; (ii) the adoption of policies and procedures related to management of third parties used to outsource residential mortgage servicing, loss mitigation or foreclosure; (iii) a "validation report" from an independent third-party consultant regarding compliance with the Order for the first year; and (iv) submission of quarterly progress reports as to compliance with the Order by the Company's the Board of Directors. The Order also provides that the Company will be responsible for the payment of any civil money penalties or compensatory payments assessed by the Federal Reserve related to such alleged conduct, which penalties or payments have not yet been determined. On January 15, 2013, the Company entered into a settlement with the Federal Reserve which resulted in the early termination of the foreclosure review process required by the Order and, in its place, the Company agreed to pay into a settlement fund and to pay additional funds for borrower relief efforts. The Federal Reserve has reserved the ability to impose civil monetary penalties on Saxon.
Commercial Mortgage Related Matter.
On January 25, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in The Bank of New York Mellon Trust, National Association v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc., a litigation pending in the SDNY. The suit, brought by the trustee of a series of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, alleges that the Company breached certain representations and warranties with respect to an $81 million commercial mortgage loan that was originated and transferred to the trust by the Company. The complaint seeks, among other things, to have the Company repurchase the loan and pay additional monetary damages. On June 27, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, but directed the filing of an amended complaint. On July 29, 2011, the Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint. On September 21, 2012, the Company and plaintiff filed motions for summary judgment.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2013 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact name of"Registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212) 761-4000
(State or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Title of each class which registered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) ofthe Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Series A, $0.01 par value ยฆ New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred
Stock, Scries E, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred
Stock, Scries F, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6V4% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6V4% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
53/4% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty wilh respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley Cushingยฎ MLP High Income Index ETNs due March 21, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Crude Oil Linked ETNs due July 1, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 ofthe Securities Act. YES (HI NO O
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES ? NO [x]
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES (xj NO ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that ihe Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES (xj NO O
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. Q
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [x] Accelerated Filer ?
Non-Accelerated Filer [J Smaller reporting company (~J
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES ? NO [x]
As of June 28, 2013, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $45,831,657,254. This calculation does not reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of January 31, 2014, there were 1,975,673,438 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2014 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 ofthe 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, and involving, among other matters, sales and trading activities, financial products or offerings sponsored, underwritten or sold by the Company, and accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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.
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. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings or investigations will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings and investigations where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or government 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. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings and investigations will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings or investigations could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by government 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 certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain federal and state regulatory and governmental entities, including among others various members of the RMBS Working Group of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS"), collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass-
Morgan Stanley
through certificates. These matters include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's disclosures to investors, and the Company's handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.
On January 30, 2014, the Company reached an 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 sponsored and underwritten by the Company in 2007. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, the Company would be charged with violating Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, and the Company would pay disgorgement and penalties in an amount of $275 million and would neither admit nor deny the SEC's findings. The SEC has not yet presented the proposed settlement to the Commission and no assurance can be given that it will be accepted.
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al, was filed in the SDNY asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants knew or should have known that from January 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008, the plans' investment in Company stock was imprudent given the extraordinary risks faced by the Company and its common stock during that period. On March 28, 2013, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss both actions. Plaintiffs filed notices of appeal on June 27, 2013 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") in both matters, which have been consolidated on appeal.
On February 12, 2008, a purported class action, styled Joel Stratte-McClure, el al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al, was filed in the SDNY against the Company and certain present and former executives asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint related in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, and also included allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January 18, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Second Circuit, which appeal is pending.
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), which is now styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation and is pending in the SDNY. The third amended complaint, filed on September 30, 2011, alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On January 31, 2013, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint, in which they purport to represent investors who purchased approximately $7.82 billion in mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2006 by 13 trusts. On August 30, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.
On May 14, 2009, the Company was named as one of several underwriter defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11,12 and 15 ofthe Securities Act which is now styled In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation and is pending in the SDNY. The claims against the Company relate to offerings of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by several trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during
Morgan Stanley
2006 and 2007. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The amount of the certificates underwritten by the Company at issue in the litigation was approximately $1.68 billion. On August 17, 2012, the court granted class certification with respect to one offering underwritten by the Company. On August 30, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the certified class to include additional offerings. IndyMac Bank, which was the sponsor of these securitizations, filed for bankruptcy on July 31, 2008, and the Company's ability to be indemnified by IndyMac Bank is limited.
On October 25, 2010, the Company, certain affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle ("SPV"), were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by the SPV in Singapore, commonly referred to as Pinnacle Notes. The case is styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. An amended complaint was filed on October 22, 2012. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 22, 2013 and granted class certification on October 17, 2013. On October 30, 2013, defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the court's decision granting class certification. On January 31, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors by structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited subsequently from the securities' failure. In addition, the second amended complaint alleges that the securities' offering materials contained material misstatements or omissions regarding the securities' underlying assets and the alleged conflicts of interest between the defendants and the investors. The second amended complaint asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs seek damages of approximately $138.7 million, rescission, punitive damages, and interest.
Other Litigation. On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. The amended complaint, filed on September 28, 2010, 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company's individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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 were filed on June 10, 2010. The amended complaints 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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On August 11, 2011, plaintiffs 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, plaintiffs 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.
Morgan Stanley
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribus Securities Corp et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiffs subsidiaries of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiffs subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff s purchase of such certificates. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On October 13, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims brought under the Securities Act. On January 27, 2012, the court, in a ruling from the bench, substantially overruled defendants' demurrers. On March 5, 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a demurrer to certain causes of action in the second amended complaint, which the court overruled on July 24, 2012. The Company filed its answer to the second amended complaint on August 3, 2012. An initial trial of certain of plaintiffs claims is scheduled to begin in July 2015.
On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank ("CDIB") filed a complaint against the Company, which is styled China Development Industrial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and is pending in the 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 March 10, 2011, the Company filed its answer to the complaint.
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 Stale of Illinois, styled Federal Home iMan 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 and asserts claims under Illinois law. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by the Company at issue in the action was approximately $203 million. The complaint seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On March 24, 2011, the court presiding over Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. 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.
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 plaintiffs 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.
On July 5, 2011, Allstate Insurance Company and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgun Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 9, 2011 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and
Morgan Stanley
i
I
j
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 and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $104 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On March 15, 2013, the court denied in substantial part the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which order the Company appealed on April 11, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the Company filed its answer to the amended complaint.
On July 18, 2011, the Western and Southern Life Insurance Company and certain affiliated companies filed a complaint against the Company and olher 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.
On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each was styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleged that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raised claims under both federal securities law and the Texas Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On March 20, 2012, the Company filed answers to the complaints in both cases. On June 7, 2012, the two cases were consolidated. On January 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions with respect to plaintiffs claims. On February 6, 2013, the FDIC filed an amended consolidated complaint. On February 25, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions, which motion was denied in substantial part on April 26, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the FDIC filed a second amended consolidated complaint. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in November 2014.
On January 20, 2012, Sealink Funding Limited filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") formerly sponsored by SachsenLB Europe. An amended complaint was filed on May 21, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the SPVs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold by the Company was approximately $507 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On March 20, 2013, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On May 3, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On January 25, 2012, Dexia SA/NV and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Dexia SA/NV et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 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 total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs by the
Morgan Stanley
Company was approximately $626 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On October 16, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 18, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal and a motion to renew their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss.
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 olher things, compensatory damages, punitive damages, rescission and rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases ofsuch 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.
On August 7, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4SL (together, the "Trust") against the Company. The matter is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL, et al. v. 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 Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $303 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreement underlying the transaction, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On October 8, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
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-I4SL, 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. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreements underlying the transactions, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. 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.
On August 10, 2012, the FDIC, as receiver for Colonial Bank, filed a complaint against the Company in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Alabama styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Colonial Bank v. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. et al The complaint alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Colonial Bank of a mortgage pass-through certificate backed by a securitization trust containing residential loans. The complaint raises claims under federal
Morgan Stanley
securities law and the Alabama Securities Act and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages. The total amount of the certificate allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to Colonial Bank was approximately $65 million. On September 13, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 12, 2013.
On September 28, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX against the Company styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor in interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., pending in the Supreme Court of NY. U.S. Bank filed an amended complaint on January 17, 2013, which asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $609 million, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among olher relief, declaratory judgment relief, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On March 18, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On October 22, 2012, Asset Management Fund d/b/a AMF Funds and certain of its affiliated funds filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Asset Management Fund d/b/a AMF Funds et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $122 million. The complaint asserts causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, monetary and punitive damages. On December 3, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 18, 2013, the court dismissed claims with respect to seven certificates purchased by the plaintiff. The remaining claims relate to certificates with an original balance of $10.6 million. On September 12, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal concerning the court's decision granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed a notice of cross-appeal on September 26, 2013.
On December 14, 2012, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Merrill Lynch et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans totaling approximately $628 million. On March 15, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 17, 2013, the court signed a joint proposed order and stipulation allowing plaintiffs to replead their complaint and defendants to withdraw their motion to dismiss without prejudice. On October 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a new complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Morgan Stanley et al. The new complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $597 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On February 3, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On January 10, 2013, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-IOSL against the Company. The complaint is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL, 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 trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $300 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order requiring the Company to comply with the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest. On March 11, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Morgan Stanley
On January 31, 2013, HSH Nordbank AG and certain affiliates filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, styled HSH Nordbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of ceitain 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 to plaintiff was approximately $524 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On April 12, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On February 14, 2013, Bank Hapoalim B.M. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $141 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On April 26, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On March 7, 2013, the Federal Housing Finance Agency filed a summons with notice on behalf of the trustee of the Saxon Asset Securities Trust, Series 2007-1, against the Company and an affiliate. The matter is styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Saxon Asset Securities Trust, Series 2007-1 v. Saxon Funding Management LLC and Morgan Stanley and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $593 million, breached various representations and warranties. The notice seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, indemnity, and interest.
On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs in Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaflsbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiff was approximately $694 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On July 12,2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On May 17, 2013, plaintiff in 1KB International S.A. in Liquidation, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $132 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On July 26, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On July 2, 2013, the trustee, Deutsche Bank became the named plaintiff in Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI (MSAC 2007-NCI) v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of NY under the caption Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I, Inc. On
Morgan Stanley
February 3, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.25 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, rescission and interest.
On July 8, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint in Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX, by U.S. Bank National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor-by-merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. The complaint, filed in the Supreme Court of NY, asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $650 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages and interest. On August 22, 2013, the Company a filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On August 5, 2013, Landesbank Baden-Wiirttemberg and two affiliates filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY styled Landesbank Baden-Wiirttemberg et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization tmsts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiffs was approximately $50 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission based upon mutual mistake, and seeks, among other things, rescission, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. On October 4,2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On August 16, 2013, plaintiffs in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. 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 $567 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 California Corporate Securities Law of 1968, and violations of the Kansas Blue Sky Law and seeks, among other things, rescissionary and compensatory damages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 4, 2013. On December 27, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss in substantial part. The surviving claims relate to one certificate purchased by the plaintiff for approximately $17 million.
On August 26, 2013, a complaint was filed against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Phoenix Light SF Limited et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs, or their assignors, of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs or their assignors by the Company was approximately $344 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation and rescission based on mutual mistake and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, punitive damages or alternatively rescission or rescissionary damages associated with the purchase of such certificates. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on December 13, 2013.
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 SDNY. 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
Morgan Stanley
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, rescissionary 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.
On November 6, 2013, Deutsche Bank, in its capacity as trustee, became the named plaintiff in Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf ofthe Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust. Series 2007-NC3 (MSAC 2007-NC3) v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of NY under the caption Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, solely in its capacity as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC3 v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as Successor-by-Merger lo Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.3 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, rescission, interest and costs. On December 16, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On December 24, 2013, Commerzbank AG London Branch filed a summons with notice against the Company and others in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Commerzbank AG London Branch v. UBS AG et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain other entities. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs assignors 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $207 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common-law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, civil conspiracy, tortious interference and unjust enrichment. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages of at least approximately $207 million and punitive damages.
On December 30, 2013, Wilmington Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-12, filed a complaint against the Company. The matter is styled Wilmington Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC et al. 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 trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $516 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, interest and costs.
On January 15, 2014, the FDIC, as receiver for United Western Bank filed a complaint against the Company and others in the District Court of the State of Colorado, styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for United Western Bank v. Banc of America Funding Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to United Western Bank of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold to United Western Bank by the Company was approximately $75 million. The complaint raises claims under both federal securities law and the Colorado Securities Act and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated wilh plaintiffs purchase ofsuch certificates.
Other Matters. On a case-by-case basis the Company has entered into agreements to toll the statute of limitations applicable to potential civil claims related to RMBS, CDOs and other mortgage-related products and services when the Company has concluded that it is in its interest to do so.
Morgan Stanley
On October 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from Gibbs & Brans LLP (the "Law Firm"), which is purportedly representing a group of investment advisers and holders of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by RMBS trusts that were sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The letter asserted that the Law Finn's clients collectively hold 25% or more of the voting rights in 17 RMBS tmsts sponsored or underwritten by the Company and that these tmsts have an aggregate outstanding balance exceeding $6 billion. The letter alleged generally that large numbers of mortgages in these trusts were sold or deposited into the trusts based on false and/or fraudulent representations and warranties by the mortgage originators, sellers and/or depositors. The letter also alleged generally that there is evidence suggesting that the Company has failed prudently lo service mortgage loans in these trusts. On January 31, 2012, the Law Firm announced that its clients hold over 25% of the voting rights in 69 RMBS trusts securing over $25 billion of RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company, and that its clients had issued instructions to the trustees of these trusts to open investigations into allegedly ineligible mortgages held by these trusts. The Law Finn's press release also indicated that the Law Firm's clients anticipate that they may provide additional instructions to the trustees, as needed, to further the investigations. On September 19, 2012, the Company received two purported Notices of Non-Performance from the Law Firm purportedly on behalf of the holders of significant voting rights in various trusts securing over $28 billion of residential mortgage backed securities sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The Notice purports to identify certain covenants in Pooling and Servicing Agreements ("PSAs") that the holders allege that the Servicer and Master Servicer failed to perform, and alleges that each of these failures has materially affected the rights of certificateholders and constitutes an ongoing event of default under the relevant PSAs. On November 2, 2012, the Company responded to the letters, denying the allegations therein.
Commercial Mortgage Related Matter.
On January 25, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in The Bank of New York Mellon Trust, National Association v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc., a litigation pending in the SDNY. The suit, brought by the trustee of a series of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, alleges that the Company breached certain representations and warranties with respect to an $81 million commercial mortgage loan that was originated and transferred to the trust by the Company. The complaint seeks, among other things, to have the Company repurchase the loan and pay additional monetary damages. On June 27, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, but directed the filing of an amended complaint. On July 29, 2011, the Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint. On June 20, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion for summary judgment, and denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. On October 30, 2013, the Company filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment.
Matters Related to the CDS Market.
On July I, 2013, the European Commission ("EC") issued a Statement of Objections ("SO") addressed to twelve financial firms (including the Company), the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. ("ISDA") and Markit Group Limited ("Markit") and various affiliates alleging that, between 2006 and 2009, the recipients breached European Union competition law by taking and refusing to take certain actions in an effort to prevent the development of exchange traded credit default swap ("CDS") products. The SO indicates that the EC plans to impose remedial measures and fines on the recipients. The Company and the other recipients filed a response to the SO on January 21, 2014. The Company and others have also responded to an investigation by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice related to the CDS market.
Beginning in May 2013, twelve financial firms (including the Company), as well as ISDA and Markit, were named as defendants in multiple purported antitrust class actions now consolidated into a single proceeding in the SDNY styled In Re: Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated United States antitrust laws from 2008 to present in connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of exchange traded CDS products. The complaints seek, among other relief, certification ofa class of plaintiffs who purchased CDS from defendants in the United States, treble damages and injunctive relief.
Morgan Stanley
The following matters were terminated during or following the quarter ended December 31, 2013:
In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation, which had been pending in the SDNY, related to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. A group of underwriter defendants, including the Company, settled the main litigation on December 2, 2012. The remaining opt-out claims and appeals have now been resolved.
Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP v. Morgan Stanley, et ai, which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On November 15, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On December 3, 2013, the court dismissed the action.
Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Morgan Stanley, et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On December 6, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On January 2, 2014, the court dismissed the action.
Seagull Point, LLC, individually and on behalf of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007 HE-5 v. WMC Mortgage Corp., et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the loans in the trust breached various representations and warranties. On January 9, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of discontinuance, dismissing the action against all defendants.
Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al., which had been pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On December 6, 2013, plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of all of its claims against the Company. On January 27, 2014, the court dismissed the action.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et ai, which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiffs in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On January 23, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation.
Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et ai, which had been pending in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On February 11, 2014, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On February 20, 2014, the court dismissed the action.
Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. Morgan Stanley et al., which had been pending in the SDNY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On February 7, 2014, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On February 20, 2014, the court dismissed the action.
On December 12, 2013, the Company entered into an agreement with American International Group, Inc. ("AIG") to resolve AIG's potential claims against the Company related to AIG's purchases of certain mortgage pass-through certificates sponsored or underwritten by the Company backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2014 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charier)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212) 761-4000
(State or ochcr jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Title of each class which regiscered
Securities registered pursuant lo Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1 /1,000th interest m a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Series A, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest m a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred
Stock, Scries E, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Fixcd-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Prcfened
Stock, Scries F, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of 6.625% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Scries G, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing l/l,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred
Stock, Series I, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6 yยซ% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6 Vt% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
5 Yi% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley Cushingยฎ Ml.P High Income Index ETNs due March 21, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 ofthe Securities Act. YES (X| NO ?
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required lo file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Act. YES EJ NO [X]
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (I) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES (x) NO ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES (X) NO Q
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or infonnation statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Fonn 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. O
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. Sec the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [X] Accelerated Filer fj
Non-Accelerated Filer fj Smaller reporting company fj
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES fj NO [x]
As of June 30, 2014, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $60,823,096,775. This calculation does not reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of January 31, 2015, there were 1,976,612,907 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2015 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part 111 of this Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, and involving, among other matters, sales and trading activities, financial products or offerings sponsored, underwritten or sold by the Company, and accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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.
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. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings or investigations will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings and investigations where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or government 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. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings and investigations will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings or investigations could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by government 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 certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company has received subpoenas and requests for information from certain federal and state regulatory and governmental entities, including among others various members of the RMBS Working Group of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, such as the United States Department of Justice, Civil Division and several state Attorney General's Offices, concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related
Morgan Stanley
matters such as residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS"), collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass-through certificates. These matters, some of which are in advanced stages, include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's disclosures to investors, and the Company's handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.
In May 2014, the California Attorney General's Office ("CAAG"), which is one of the members of the RMBS Working Group, indicated that it has made certain preliminary conclusions that the Company made knowing and material misrepresentations regarding RMBS and that it knowingly caused material misrepresentations to be made regarding the Cheyne SIV, which issued securities marketed to the California Public Employees Retirement System. The CAAG has further indicated that it believes the Company's conduct violated California law and that it may seek treble damages, penalties and injunctive relief. The Company does not agree with these conclusions and has presented defenses to them to the CAAG.
On September 16, 2014, the Virginia Attorney General's Office filed a civil lawsuit, styled Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. Integra REC LLC v. Barclays Capital Inc., et ai, against the Company and several other defendants in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond related to RMBS. The lawsuit alleges that the Company and the other defendants knowingly made misrepresentations and omissions related to the loans backing RMBS purchased by the Virginia Retirement System ("VRS"). The complaint alleges VRS suffered total losses of approximately $384 million on these securities, but does not specify the amount of alleged losses attributable to RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The complaint asserts claims under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, as well as common law claims of actual and constructive fraud, and seeks, among other things, treble damages and civil penalties. On January 20, 2015, the defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint and a plea in bar seeking dismissal of the complaint.
In October 2014, the Illinois Attorney General's Office ("IL AG") sent a letter to the Company alleging that the Company knowingly made misrepresentations related to RMBS purchased by certain pension funds affiliated with the State of Illinois and demanding that the Company pay the IL AG approximately $88 million. The Company does not agree with these allegations and has presented defenses to them to the IL AG.
On January 13, 2015, the New York Attorney General's Office ("NYAG"), which is also a member of the RMBS Working Group, indicated that it intends to file a lawsuit related to approximately 30 subprime securitizations sponsored by the Company. NYAG indicated that the lawsuit would allege that the Company misrepresented or omitted material information related to the due diligence, underwriting and valuation of the loans in the securitizations and the properties securing them and indicated that its lawsuit would be brought under the Martin Act. The Company does not agree with NY AG's allegations and has presented defenses to them to NYAG.
On February 25, 2015, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the United States Department of Justice, Civil Division and the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California, Civil Division (collectively, the "Civil Division") to pay $2.6 billion to resolve certain claims that the Civil Division indicated it intended to bring against the Company. While the Company and the Civil Division have reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter, there can be no assurance that the Company and the Civil Division will agree on the final documentation of the settlement.
Class Actions
On February 12, 2008, a purported class action, styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et ai, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") against the Company and certain present and former executives asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint related in
Morgan Stanley
large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, and also included allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January 18, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit"). On January 12, 2015, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action.
On October 25, 2010, the Company, certain affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle ("SPV"), were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by the SPV in Singapore, commonly referred to as Pinnacle Notes. The case is styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The court granted class certification on October 17, 2013. The second amended complaint, filed on January 31, 2014, alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors by structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited subsequently from the securities' failure, that the securities' offering materials contained material misstatements or omissions regarding the securities' underlying assets and alleged conflicts of interest between the defendants and the investors, and asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement, and breach ofthe implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs seek damages of approximately $138.7 million, rescission, punitive damages, and interest. On July 17, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation, which received preliminary court approval December 2, 2014. The final approval hearing is scheduled for July 2, 2015.
Other Litigation. On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. The amended complaint, filed on September 28, 2010, 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company's individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 7, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs demand for a jury trial.
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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On August 11, 2011, plaintiff's federal securities law claims were dismissed with prejudice. 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. On January 26, 2015, the plaintiff requested dismissal with prejudice of all remaining claims against the Company in the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al. action.
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribas Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiffs subsidiaries of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts
Morgan Stanley
containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiffs subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff s purchase of such certificates. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On October 13, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims brought under the Securities Act. On January 27, 2012, the court substantially overruled defendants' demurrers. On March 5, 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a demurrer to ceitain causes of action in the second amended complaint, which the court overruled on July 24, 2012. On November 24, 2014, plaintiffs negligent misrepresentation claims were dismissed with prejudice. An initial trial of certain of plaintiffs claims is scheduled lo begin in August 2015.
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 ai, 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.
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. A corrected amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2011. The corrected amended 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 and asserts claims under Illinois law. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by the Company at issue in the action was approximately $203 million. The complaint seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the corrected amended complaint on May 27, 2011, which was denied on September 19, 2012. On December 13, 2013, the court entered an order dismissing all claims related to one of the securitizations at issue. After that dismissal, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $78 million.
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 29, 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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On May 26, 2011, defendants removed the case to the United Slates District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On October 11, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which were granted in part and denied in part on September 30, 2013. On November 25, 2013 and July 16, 2014, respectively, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims against the Company with respect to two of the securitizations at issue. After these voluntary dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $358 million.
Morgan Stanley
On July 18, 2011, the Western and Southern Life Insurance Company and certain affiliated companies filed a complaint against the Company and olher 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. On May 21, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was denied on August 3, 2012. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on January 20, 2015. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in July 2015.
On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each was styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Franklin Bank, S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleged that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raised claims under both federal securities law and the Texas Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On June 7, 2012, the two cases were consolidated. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions, which was denied in substantial part on April 26, 2013. The FDIC filed a second amended consolidated complaint on May 3, 2013. The Company filed a motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal as to the court's order denying its motion for summary judgment and special exceptions, which was denied on August 1, 2013. On October 7, 2014, the court denied the Company's motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying its motion for summary judgment and special exceptions and granted its motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying leave to file an interlocutory appeal. On November 21, 2014, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied on February 10, 2015. The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied Morgan Stanley's petition for interlocutory appeal on November 25, 2014. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in July 2015.
On January 20, 2012, Sealink Funding Limited filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") formerly sponsored by SachsenLB Europe. A second amended complaint, filed on March 20, 2013, alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the SPVs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold by the Company was approximately $507 million. The second amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On May 3, 2013, the Company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on April 18, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion. On May 1, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of that decision.
On January 25, 2012, Dexia SA/NV and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Dexia SA/NV et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 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 total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $626 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On
Morgan Stanley
I
I
October 16, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 18, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal. Plaintiffs also filed a motion to renew their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, which the court denied on June 23, 2014. On July 16, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of lhat decision, which has been consolidated with the appeal of the motion to dismiss.
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. On October 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended 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 $1,073 billion. The amended complaint raises claims under the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law, as well as common law claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, 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 January 2, 2015, the court denied defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On August 7, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4SL (together, the "Trust") against the Company. The matter is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL, et al. v. 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 Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $303 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreement underlying the transaction, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On August 8, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.
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. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreements underlying the transactions, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. 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 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.
On August 10, 2012, the FDIC, as receiver for Colonial Bank, filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Alabama styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Colonial Bank v. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. et al. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 13, 2013. The complaint alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Colonial Bank of a mortgage pass-through certificate backed by a securitization trust containing residential loans. The complaint asserts claims under federal securities law and the Alabama Securities Act, and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages. The total amount of the certificate allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to Colonial Bank was approximately $65 million. On November 12, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was denied on April 10, 2014.
Morgan Stanley
On September 28, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX against the Company styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor in interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., pending in the Supreme Court of NY. U.S. Bank filed an amended complaint on January 17, 2013, which asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, lhat the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $609 million, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory judgment relief, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On September 30, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the court's September 30, 2014 decision.
On December 14, 2012, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Merrill Lynch et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans totaling approximately $628 million. On October 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a new complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Morgan Stanley et al. The new complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $597 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On February 3, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On January 10, 2013, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-IOSL against the Company. The complaint is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL, 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 trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $300 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order requiring the Company to comply with the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest. On August 8, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint.
On January 31, 2013, HSH Nordbank AG and certain affiliates filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, styled HSH Nordbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiff was approximately $524 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On April 12, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On February 14, 2013, Bank Hapoalim B.M. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $141 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things,
Morgan Stanley
I
I
compensatory and punitive damages. On April 22, 2014, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss in substantial part. On September 18, 2014, the Company filed a notice of appeal from the ruling denying defendants' motion to dismiss.
On March 7, 2013, the Federal Housing Finance Agency filed a summons with notice on behalf of the trustee of the Saxon Asset Secunties Trust, Scries 2007-1, against the Company and an affiliate. The matter is styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Saxon Asset Securities Trust, Series 2007-1 v. Saxon Funding Management LLC and Morgan Stanley and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $593 million, breached various representations and wananties. The notice seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, indemnity, and interest.
On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs in Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiff was approximately $694 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On June 10, 2014, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. On August 4, 2014, claims regarding two certificates were dismissed by stipulation. After these dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $644 million.
On May 17, 2013, plaintiff in 1KB International S.A. in Liquidation, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $132 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On October 30, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. All claims regarding four certificates were dismissed. After these dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $116 million. On December 1, 2014, the Company filed a notice of appeal from the Court's October 30, 2014 decision.
On July 2, 2013, the trustee, Deutsche Bank became the named plaintiff in Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee ofthe Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI (MSAC 2007-NCI) v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of NY under the caption Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I, Inc. On February 3, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.25 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, rescission and interest. On March 12, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
July 8, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint in Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX, by U.S. Bank National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as
Morgan Stanley
successor-by-merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Greenpoinl Mortgage Funding, Inc. The complaint, filed in the Supreme Court of NY, asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $650 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages and interest. On August 22, 2013, the Company a filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on November 24, 2014.
On August 5, 2013, Landesbank Baden-Wiirttemberg and two affiliates filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Landesbank Baden-Wiirttemberg et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $50 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission based upon mutual mistake, and seeks, among other things, rescission, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. On October 4, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On August 16, 2013, the plaintiff in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts in the sale to the plaintiff 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 $567 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 California Corporate Securities Law of 1968, and violations of the Kansas Blue Sky Law and seeks, among other things, rescissionary and compensatory damages. On December 27, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in substantial part. The surviving claims relate to one certificate purchased by the plaintiff for approximately $17 million. On November 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On December 15, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in part.
On August 26, 2013, a complaint was filed against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Phoenix Light SF Limited et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs, or their assignors, of ceitain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs or their assignors by the Company was approximately $344 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation and rescission based on mutual mistake and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, punitive damages or alternatively rescission or rescissionary damages associated with the purchase of such certificates. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on December 13, 2013. On June 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. By stipulation dated July 18, 2014, the parties agreed that the Company's previously filed motion to dismiss would be deemed to be directed at the amended complaint.
On September 23, 2013, the plaintiff in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the SDNY. 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, rescissionary and compensatory
Morgan Stanley
damages. 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. On April 28, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to strike certain of the defendants' affirmative defenses. On July 11, 2014, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order on the motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for certification of interlocutory appeal and a stay of all proceedings, which the court denied on September 30, 2014. On November 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
On November 6, 2013, Deutsche Bank, in its capacity as trustee, became the named plaintiff in Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for ihe Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC3 (MSAC 2007-NC3) v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of NY under the caption Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, solely in its capacity as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC3 v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as Successor-by-Merger lo Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.3 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, rescission, interest and costs. On December 16, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On December 24, 2013, Commerzbank AG London Branch filed a summons with notice against the Company and others in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Commerzbank AG London Branch v. UBS AG et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain other entities. The complaint, which was filed on May 20, 2014, alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs assignors 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 to plaintiffs' assignors was approximately $185 million. The complaint asserts causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, and aiding and abetting common law fraud and fraudulent concealment and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. The Company and olher defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on December 5, 2014.
On December 30, 2013, Wilmington Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-12, filed a complaint against the Company. The matter is styled Wilmington Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC et al. 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 trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $516 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, interest and costs. On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On January 15, 2014, the FDIC, as receiver for United Western Bank filed a complaint against the Company and others in the District Court of the State of Colorado, styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for United Western Bank v. Banc of America Funding Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to United Western Bank of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold to United Western Bank by the Company was approximately $75 million. The complaint raises claims under both federal securities law and the Colorado Securities Act and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiffs purchase ofsuch certificates. On February 14, 2014, the defendants filed a notice removing the litigation to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On March 14, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action. On April 30, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Morgan Stanley
On April 28, 2014, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee for Morgan Stanley Structured Trust I 2007-1, filed a complaint against the Company. The matter is styled Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $735 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages, interest and costs. On July 21, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On September 19, 2014, Financial Guaranty Insurance Company ("FGIC") filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County ("Supreme Court of New York") styled Financial Guaranty Insurance Company v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital J Inc. et al. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the net interest margin securities ("NIMS") in the trust breached various representations and warranties. FGIC issued a financial guaranty policy with respect to certain notes that had an original balance of approximately $475 million. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the NIM breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, reimbursement of certain payments made pursuant to the transaction documents, attorneys' fees and interest. On November 24, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On September 19, 2014, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC4, filed a summons with notice against the Company in the Supreme Court of New York styled Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, solely in its capacity as Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC4 v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor-by-merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.05 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The trustee filed its complaint on January 23, 2015, alleging breaches of representations and warranties, the repurchase obligation, and the duty to notify, and seeking, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents; compensatory, consequential, rescissory, equitable and/or punitive damages; attorneys' fees, costs and other related expenses, and interest.
On September 23, 2014, FGIC filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of New York styled Financial Guaranty Insurance Company v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. et al. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust breached various representations and warranties and defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to induce FGIC to issue a financial guaranty policy on certain classes of certificates that had an original balance of approximately $876 million. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and interest. On November 24, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Other Matters. On a case-by-case basis the Company has entered into agreements to toll the statute of limitations applicable to potential civil claims related to RMBS, CDOs and other mortgage-related products and services when the Company has concluded that it is in its interest to do so.
On October 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP (the "Law Firm"), which is purportedly representing a group of investment advisers and holders of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by RMBS trusts that were sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The letter asserted that the Law Firm's clients collectively hold 25% or more of the voting rights in 17 RMBS trusts sponsored or underwritten by the Company and that these trusts have an aggregate outstanding balance exceeding $6 billion. The letter alleged generally that large numbers of mortgages in these trusts were sold or deposited into the trusts based on false and/or fraudulent representations and warranties by the mortgage originators, sellers and/or depositors. The letter also alleged generally that there is evidence suggesting that the Company has failed prudently to service
Morgan Stanley
mortgage loans in these trusts. On January 31, 2012, the Law Firm announced that its clients hold over 25% of the voting rights in 69 RMBS trusts securing over $25 billion of RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company, and that its clients had issued instructions to the trustees of these trusts to open investigations into allegedly ineligible mortgages held by these trusts. The Law Firm's press release also indicated that the Law Finn's clients anticipate that they may provide additional instructions to the trustees, as needed, to further the investigations. On September 19, 2012, the Company received two purported Notices of Non-Performance from the Law Firm purportedly on behalf of the holders of significant voting rights in various trusts securing over $28 billion of residential mortgage backed securities sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The Notice purports to identify certain covenants in Pooling and Servicing Agreements ("PSAs") that the holders allege that the Servicer and Master Servicer failed to perform, and alleges that each of these failures has materially affected the rights of certificateholders and constitutes an ongoing event of default under the relevant PSAs. On November 2, 2012, the Company responded to the letters, denying the allegations therein.
Commercial Mortgage Related Matter.
On January 25, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in The Bank of New York Mellon Trust, National Association v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc., a litigation pending in the SDNY. The suit, brought by the trustee of a series of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, alleges that the Company breached certain representations and warranties with respect to an $81 million commercial mortgage loan that was originated and transferred to the trust by the Company. The complaint seeks, among other things, to have the Company repurchase the loan and pay additional monetary damages. On June 16, 2014, the court granted the Company's supplemental motion for summary judgment. On June 17, 2014, the court entered judgment in the Company's favor. On July 16, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
Matters Related to the CDS Market.
On July 1, 2013, the European Commission ("EC") issued a Statement of Objections ("SO") addressed to twelve financial firms (including the Company), the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. ("ISDA") and Markit Group Limited ("Markit") and various affiliates alleging that, between 2006 and 2009, the recipients breached European Union competition law by taking and refusing to take certain actions in an effort to prevent the development of exchange traded credit default swap ("CDS") products. The SO indicates that the EC plans to impose remedial measures and fines on the recipients. The Company and the other recipients of the SO filed a response to the SO on January 21, 2014, and attended oral hearings before the EC during the period May 12-19, 2014. The Company's oral hearing took place on May 15, 2014. The Company filed a supplemental response to the SO on July 11, 2014. The Company and others have also responded to an investigation by the Antitrust Division ofthe United States Department of Justice related to the CDS market.
Beginning in May 2013, twelve financial firms (including the Company), as well as ISDA and Markit, were named as defendants in multiple purported antitrust class actions now consolidated into a single proceeding in the SDNY styled In Re: Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated United States antitrust laws from 2008 to present in connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of exchange traded CDS products. The complaints seek, among other relief, certification of a class of plaintiffs who purchased CDS from defendants in the United States, treble damages and injunctive relief. On September 4, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
The following matters were terminated during or following the quarter ended December 31, 2014:
In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation and Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al were purported class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") relating to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses. Both cases were dismissed by the SDNY and their dismissal affirmed by the Second Circuit. On December 3, 2014, the time for plaintiffs to pursue a further appeal expired.
Morgan Stanley
I
i
I
i
In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation, which had been pending in the SDNY, was a putative class action involving allegations that, among other things, the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. On December 18, 2014, the parties' agreement to settle the litigation received final court approval, and on December 19, 2014, the court entered an order dismissing the action.
In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, which had been pending in the SDNY, was a class action involving allegations that, among other things, the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. On February 3, 2015, the court issued its final approval of the parties' agreement to settle the litigation and on February 23, 2015, the court entered a final judgment dismissing the action.
Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations 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. On January 16, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
Morgan Stanley
i
i
i
I
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
|X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015
OR
? TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact Name of Registrant as specified in ns charier)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212) 761-4000
(State or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive including area code)
offices, including zip code)
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (ยง 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes (x) No ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [x] Accelerated Filer fj]
Non-Accelerated Filer O Smaller reporting company Q
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ? Nog
As of April 30, 2015, there were 1,970,026,803 shares of the Registrant's Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, outstanding.
Part IIโOther Information.
Item 1. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the "Form 10-K") and those described below, 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, and involving, among other matters, sales and trading activities, financial products or offerings sponsored, underwritten or sold by the Company, and accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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 condensed 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.
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. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings or investigations will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings and investigations where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or government 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. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings and investigations will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings or investigations could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by government 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 certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or are not yet determined to be material.
Morgan Stanley
The following developments have occurred with respect to certain matters previously reported in the Form 10-K or concern new actions that have been filed since December 31, 2014:
On February 23, 2015, the plaintiff in Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. perfected its appeal of the court's April 18, 2014 decision granting the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On February 25, 2015, the court in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et al, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in part. On March 23, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the December 27, 2013 order granting defendants' motion to dismiss in substantial part.
On March 24, 2015, the court in Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for United Western Bank v. Banc of America Funding Corp., et al., denied defendants' motion to dismiss in substantial part.
On April 3, 2015, the court in Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.
On April 23, 2015, the court in Phoenix Light SF Limited et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. granted the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Morgan Stanley
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable:
Morgan Stanley Capital Management, LLC
Check ONE of the following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
jk] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest: "ยฐ^an stanlev *Co- LLC d/b/a Horgan s"nley * comply llc
OR
3. [] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
B. Business address ofthe Disclosing Party: 1221 Avenue of the Americas
New'York, NY 10020
Telephone: 212-762-6565 Fax.: 212-507-3656 EmaiElouis -palladino@morganstanley.com
Name of contact person: Louis Palladino
Federal Employer Identification No. (ifyou have one): n/a
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II -- DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
Person
Publicly registered business corporation
Privately held business corporation
Sole proprietorship
General partnership
Limited partnership
Trust
[x] Limited liability company [ J Limited liability partnership [ ] Joint venture [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
(Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable:
Delaware
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ ] Yes [x] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors ofthe entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there arc no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management of the Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
See EXHIBIT A
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary of a trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
Morgan Stanley 1585 Broadway 100%
New York, NY 10036
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [x] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature ofthe relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
I
i
! i
I
I
i
j
j
I i
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
[x] Check here ifthe Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V ~ CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [x] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
i
i
I
I
I
i
The Disclosing Party and, if the Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted ofa criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any ofthe offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization ofa business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization ofa responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity of a Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ofthe U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
See EXHIBIT B in lieu of response to items above
Page 6 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
None
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than S20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient.
Based on a review of Firm expenditures records, and to the best of our knowledge, information and belief, the Disclosing Party has not given a gift to any City of Chicago official or employee.
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[x] is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee ofthe City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes [x] No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.L, proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[]Yes []No
Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.L, provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
_x 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of
the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations ofthe City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "NA" or ifthe word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
If the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director ofthe Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII-- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
Ifthe City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. Ifthe Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F. 1. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any ofthe items in F.l., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
(Sign here)
Louis A. Palladino, Jr.
Morgan Stanley Capital^Jjgrhagement, LLC
(Print or type name of person signing)
Vice President
(Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date) Tc^e jP. XO/X
at fl&uy County, QcmJ y qMC (state).
L^aI.lutein jยฃNotary Public.
WILLIAM P. ROSE Attorney At Law Notary Public. State of New York No. 02RO4953501 Qualified in Nassau County/ v Commission Expires Dec. 4, 2(1 โ^
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section ILB.l.a., ifthe Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [ x| No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
Exhibit A
Morgan Stanley Capita! Management, LLC
Current Appointments
Board Positions
Name V?;ยฃfMยฃ^.V.'u V": Goodman, Jeffrey Heaton, Eric Schiffman, Ethan J.
Officers
.-Position. \^KKSSiVr \ โข โข ,.:-:.V.'.'-Manager (Board of Managers) Manager (Board of Managers) Manager (Board of Managers)
Schiffman, Ethan J. Goodman, Jeffrey Heaton, Eric Mehta, Tushar Palladino, Jr., Louis A. Ratnarajah, David Jordan, Sabrina Greene, Aliah
Greeley O'Regan, Jeanne E. Dugan, Margaret T. Guth, Aaron Tyler, Jacob E.
iPpsitiph;
President Vice President Vice President Vice President Vice President Vice President Treasurer
Assistant Treasurer Secretary
Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary
I
Exhibit B
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securilics Exchange Act of 1934 I:or the year ended December 31, 2009 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Ex-ict name of Rcgismnr as specified in its charter)
Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
1585 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
(Address of principal executive offices,
including zip code)
36-3145972
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
(212) 761-4000 (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
Name of exchange on which registered
New York Stock Exchange
New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange NYSE Amex LLC NYSE Area, Inc.
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Slock, SO.01 par value
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Floating Rale Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series A, $0 01
par value
6 '/ยฆ<% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust 111 (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
6 W/o'Capital Secunties ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
S'/4% Capital Secunties ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
6 60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
6 60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
6.45% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty wilh respect thereto)
Exchangeable Notes due December 30, 2010; Exchangeable Notes duc June 30, 2011
BRIDGESโข due June 15,2010
Capital Protected Notes due April 20, 2010, Capilal Proteclcd Noles due July 20, 2010 (2 issuances), Capital Protected Notes due
August 30, 2010; Capital Protected Notes due October 30, 2010; Capital Protected Notes duc January 30, 2011; Capital Protected
NYSE Area, Inc.
The NASDAQ Stock Markcl LLC
NYSE Area, Inc
NYSE Amex LLC
NYSE Amex LLC
NYSE Area, Inc.
NYSE Area, Inc.
NYSE Area, Inc. NYSE Area, Inc. NYSE Area, Inc.
NYSE Area, Inc.
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
Notes due February 20,2011; Capital Protected Notes due March 30, 2011 (2 issuances); Capital Protected Notes due June 30.2011;
Capital Protected Notes duc August 20, 2011; Capital Protected Notes duc October 30, 2011; Capital Proteclcd Notes due
December 30, 2011; Capital Protected Notes due September 30, 2012
Capital Protected Notes due September 1, 2010
MPSSM due June 15, 2010; MPS due December 30, 2010, MPS due March 30, 2012
MPS due December 30, 2010
Stock Participation Notes due September 15, 2010; Stock Participation Notes due December 30,2010
Buffered PLUSSM due December 20, 2010; Buffered PLUS due March 20, 2011
PROPELSSM due December 30, 2011 (3 issuances)
Protected Absolute Return Barrier Notes duc March 20, 2010; Protected Absolute Return Barrier Notes due July 20, 2010; Protected
Absolute Return Bamer Notes duc August 20, 2010; Protected Absolute Return Bamer Notes due March 20, 2011
Strategic Total Return Securities due July 30, 2011
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances). Market Vectors ETNs due Apnl 30,2020 (2 issuances)
Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities due March 30, 2010; Targeted Income Strategic Total Retum Securities duc July 30,
2011; Targeted Income Strategic Total Retum Securities due January 15, 2012
Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities due October 30, 2011
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES (x) NO ? Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES ? NO [X]
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 dunng the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES (x) NO FJ Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. jx]
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. Sec the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Accelerated Filer Q Smaller reporting company ?
Large Accelerated Filer [X] Non-Accelerated Filer FJ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES ? NO (x]
As of June 30, 2009, the aggregate market value ofthe common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $38,566,093,047 This calculation does not reflect a determination that persons arc affiliates for any other purposes.
As of January 31, 2010, there were 1,398,087.044 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated By Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2010 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part 111 of this Form 10-K
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 issuers that would otherwise be the primary defendants in such cases are bankrupt or in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business including, among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
The Company contests liability and/or the amount of damages as appropriate in each pending matter. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, particularly in cases where claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages or where investigations and proceedings are in the early stages, the Company cannot predict with certainty the loss or range of loss, if any, related to such matters, how or if such matters will be resolved, when they will ultimately be resolved, or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, might be. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such pending matters will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such matters could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular future period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Residential Mortgage-Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for infonnation from certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related issues including collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass through certificates.
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, which is styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint alleges, among olher things, that the Company's stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. On December 9, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action, which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming the Company and certain present and former senior executives as defendants and asserting claims for violations of the securities laws. The amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al, is currently pending in the SDNY. Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Morgan Stanley
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), alleging, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of approximately $17 billion of mortgage pass through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading infonnation concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. This case, which was consolidated with an earlier lawsuit and is currently styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litig, is pending in the SDNY. On September 15, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint which defendants have moved to dismiss.
Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained various material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued the securities and mortgage pass through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases relate to issuers that have filed for bankruptcy, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation. In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Washington Mutual, Inc. during 2006 and 2007. The Company underwrote approximately $1.6 billion of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On October 27, 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. The Company underwrote over $200 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. The Company and other defendants have moved to dismiss these claims. In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to the offerings of mortgage pass through certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. The Company underwrote over $2.4 billion of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. The Company and other defendants have moved to dismiss these claims.
Sliareholder Derivative Matter. A shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the SDNY during November 2007 asserting claims related in large part to losses caused by certain subprime-related trading positions and related matters. The complaint in that lawsuit, which is styled Steve Staehr, Derivatively on Behalf of Morgan Stanley v. John J. Mack, et ai, was served on the Company on February 15, 2008. On July 16, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which defendants have moved to dismiss. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution, and institution of certain corporate governance reforms.
Auction Rate Securities Matters.
On August 27, 2008, a shareholder derivative complaint, which was styled Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. Mack, et al., was filed in the SDNY. On September 12, 2008, a second complaint, which was styled Thomas v. Mack, et ai, was filed in the SDNY. The complaints were substantially similar and named as defendants the members of the Company's Board of Directors as well as certain current and former officers. Morgan Stanley, on whose behalf the suits were purportedly brought, is named as a nominal defendant in each action. The complaints raised claims of breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
Morgan Stanley
amended, related to the Company's sale of auction rate securities ("ARS") over the period from June 20, 2007 to the present. Among other things, the complaints alleged that, over the relevant period, Morgan Stanley's public filings and statements were materially false and misleading in that they failed to disclose the illiquid nature of its ARS inventories and that Morgan Stanley's practices in the sale of ARS exposed it to significant liability for settlements and judgments. The complaints also alleged that during the relevant period certain defendants sold Morgan Stanley's stock while in possession of material non-public information. The complaints sought, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution from the defendants with respect to compensation, benefits and profits obtained, and the institution of certain reforms to Morgan Stanley's internal control functions. On November 24, 2008, the SDNY ordered the consolidation of the two actions. On February 2, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, styled as In re Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. Auction Rate Securities Derivative Litigation. On June 23, 2009, the SDNY granted defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure by plaintiffs to make a pre-litigation demand on the Company's Board of Directors. In addition, the SDNY set a schedule for plaintiffs to make such a demand, for the Board of Directors to respond thereto, and for further proceedings before the SDNY, which may include a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
Executive Compensation-Related Matter.
A shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on February 11, 2010 asserting claims for waste, breach of the duty of loyalty and unjust enrichment related to the Company's executive compensation for the fiscal years ended November 30, 2006 and 2007 and the calendar year ended December 31, 2009. The complaint, which is styled Security and Fire Professionals of America Retirement Fund, et al. v. John J. Mack, et. ai, names as defendants the Company's Board of Directors and certain present and former officers and directors. Morgan Stanley, on whose behalf the lawsuit is purportedly being brought, is named as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the total amount of the executive compensation paid for these years was disproportionately large in relation to the Company's performance. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of compensation, benefits and profits, and institution of certain corporate governance reforms.
China Matter.
As disclosed in February 2009, the Company uncovered actions initiated by an employee based in China in an overseas real estate subsidiary that appear to have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company terminated the employee, reported the activity to appropriate authorities and is cooperating with investigations by the United States Department of Justice and the SEC.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
There were no matters submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of the year ended December 31,2009.
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant co Secrion 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2010 Commission l-'ilc Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact n.)me of Registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212)761-4000
(State or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Title of each class which registered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) ofthe Act:
Common Stock, SO.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing I/1,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Prefencd Stock,
Series A, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6 Vt% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6 'A% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
5 3A% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Exchangeable Notes due June 30, 2011 NYSE Amex LLC
Capital Protected Notes due March 30, 2011 (2 issuances); Capital Protected Notes duc June 30, 2011; Capital Protected
Notes due August 20, 2011; Capital Protected Notes duc October 30, 2011; Capital Protected Notes due December 30,
2011; Capital Protected Notes due September 30, 2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
MPSSM duc March 30,2012 NYSE Area. Inc.
Buffered PLUSSM due March 20, 2011 NYSE Area, Inc.
PROPELSโข duc December 30, 2011 (3 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Protected Absolute Return Barrier Notes due March 20, 2011 NYSE Area, Inc.
Strategic Total Retum Securities due July 30, 2011 NYSE Area, Inc.
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs duc April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Targeted Income Strategic Total Retum Securities due July 30, 2011; Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities due
January 15, 2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities duc October 30, 2011 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 ofthe Securities Act. YES (x] NO Q Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Act. YES Q NO (xl
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES (x) NO ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (ยง 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes [X] No fj
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K. or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [x]
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule l2b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [X] Accelerated Filer fj
Non-Accelerated Filer fj Smaller reporting company fj
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES fj NO [x]
As of June 30, 2010, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately S32,227,567,107. This calculation docs not reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any olher purposes.
As of January 31, 2011, there were 1,545,631,781 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2011 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, including, among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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 condensed 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.
In many proceedings, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount of any loss. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek substantial or indeterminate damages. Numerous issues may need to be resolved, including through potentially lengthy discovery and determination of important factual matters, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings in question, before a loss or additional loss or range of loss or additional loss can be reasonably estimated for any proceeding. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level ofthe Company's revenues or income for such period.
Recently, the level of litigation activity focused on residential mortgage and credit crisis related matters 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 regarding residential mortgages and related securities in the future and, while the Company has identified below certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from residential mortgage claims that have not yet been notified to the Company or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass through certificates. These matters include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's handling of foreclosure related issues, and the Company's compliance with the Service Members Civil Relief Act.
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other
Morgan Stanley
parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Bmpioyee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, which is styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's common slock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its common stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On December 9, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action, which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming the Company and certain present and former senior executives as defendants and asserting claims for violations of the securities laws. The amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, el al, is currently pending in the SDNY. Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), alleging, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of approximately $17 billion of mortgage pass through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. This case, which was consolidated with an earlier lawsuit and is currently styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation, is pending in the SDNY. On August 17, 2010, the court dismissed the claims brought by the lead plaintiff, but gave a different plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. On September 10, 2010, that plaintiff, together with several hew plaintiffs, filed a second amended complaint which purports to assert claims against the Company and others on behalf of a class of investors who purchased approximately $4.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates issued in 2006 by seven trusts collectively containing residential mortgage loans. The second amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act, and alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On October 11, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained various material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued the securities and mortgage pass through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-defendants and the
Morgan Stanley
willingness and ability of the issuers (or their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, relate to issuers (or their affiliates) that have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership.
In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On October 12, 2010, the court issued an order certifying a class of plaintiffs asserting claims under the Securities Act related to three offerings by Washington Mutual Inc. in 2006 and 2007 in which the Company participated as an underwriter. The Company underwrote approximately $1.3 billion of the securities covered by the class certified by the court.
In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. The Company underwrote approximately $232 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On June 5, 2010, the underwriter defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed by the lead plaintiffs.
In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to offerings of mortgage pass through certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. The Company underwrote over $1.4 billion of the principal amount of the offerings originally at issue. On June 21, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint. The Company underwrote approximately $46 million of the principal amount ofthe offerings at issue following the court's June 21, 2010 decision. On May 17, 2010, certain putative plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene in the litigation in order to assert claims related to additional offerings. The Company underwrote approximately $1.2 billion of the principal amount of the additional offerings subject to the motion to intervene. The Company is opposing the motion to intervene.
On December 24, 2009, the Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands filed a purported class action against the Company on behalf of holders of approximately $250 million of AAA rated notes issued by the Libertas III CDO in March 2007. The case is styled Employees' Retirement System of the Government ofthe Virgin Islands v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud and unjust enrichment and alleges that the Company made misrepresentations regarding the AAA ratings of the CDO notes and the credit quality of the collateral held by the Libertas III CDO, and stood to gain if lhat collateral defaulted. The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief, fees and costs. On March 19, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Shareholder Derivative Matter. On November 15, 2007, a shareholder derivative complaint styled Steve Staehr, Derivatively on Behalf of Morgan Stanley v. John J. Mack, et al. was filed in the SDNY asserting claims related in large part to losses caused by certain subprime-related trading positions and related matters. On July 16, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss on September 19, 2008. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution, and institution of certain corporate governance reforms.
Other Litigation. On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Cheyne Finance (the "Cheyne SIV"). The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime residential mortgage backed securities held by the SIV. On September 2, 2009, the court dismissed all of the claims against the Company except for plaintiffs' claims for common law fraud. On June 15, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 20, 2010, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to replead their aiding and abetting common law fraud claims against the Company, and those claims were added in an amended complaint filed on August 5, 2010. Since the filing ofthe initial complaint, various additional plaintiffs have been added lo
Morgan Stanley
the case. There are currently 14 plaintiffs asserting individual claims related to securities issued by the SIV. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
On January 16, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in an interpleader lawsuit styled U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Barclays Bank PLC and Morgan Stanley Capital Services Inc., which is pending in the SDNY. The lawsuit relates to credit default swaps between the Company and Tourmaline CDO I LTD ("Tourmaline"), in which Barclays Bank PLC ("Barclays") is the holder of the most senior and controlling class of notes. At issue is whether, pursuant to the terms of the swap agreements, the Company was required to post collateral to Tourmaline, or take any other action, after the Company's credit ratings were downgraded in 2008 by certain ratings agencies. The Company and Barclays have a dispute regarding whether the Company breached any obligations under the swap agreements and, if so, whether any such breaches were cured. The trustee for Tourmaline, interpleader plaintiff U.S. Bank, N.A., has refrained from making any further distribution of Tourmaline's funds pending the resolution of these issues and is seeking a judgment from the court resolving them. On January 11, 2011, the court conducted a bench trial, but has not yet issued its ruling. As of December 31, 2010, the Company believed that it was entitled to receivables from Tourmaline in an amount equal to approximately $273 million.
On September 25, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit styled Citibank, N.A. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International, PLC, which is pending in the SDNY. The lawsuit relates to a credit default swap referencing the Capmark VI CDO, which was structured by Citibank, N.A. ("Citi N.A."). At issue is whether, as part of the swap agreement, Citi N.A. was obligated to obtain the Company's prior written consent before it exercised its rights to liquidate Capmark upon the occurrence of certain contractually-defined credit events. Citi N.A. is seeking approximately $245 million in compensatory damages plus interest and costs. On October 8, 2010, the court issued an order denying Citi N.A.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Company's counterclaim for reformation and granting Citi N.A.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Company's counterclaim for estoppel. The Company moved for summary judgment on December 17, 2010. Citi N.A. opposed the Company's motion and cross moved for summary judgment on January 21, 2011.
On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 28, 2010. The complaint 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase ofsuch certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action.
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 ai, respectively. Amended complaints were filed on June 10, 2010. The complaints 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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On July 12, 2010, defendants removed these actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on December 20, 20)0, the cases were remanded to the state court.
On June 10, 2010, the Company was named as a new defendant in a pre-existing purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Rhinebridge pic ("Rhinebridge SIV"). The case is styled King County, Washington, et al. v. 1KB Deutsche Industriebank AG, et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint asserts
Morgan Stanley
claims for common law fraud and aiding and abetting common law fraud and alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime residential mortgage backed securities held by the SIV. On July 15, 2010, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint. That motion was denied on October 29, 2010. The case is pending before the same judge presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV, described above. While reserving their ability to act otherwise, plaintiffs have indicated that they do not currently plan to file a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
On July 9, 2010, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, styled Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley <& Co Inc., et al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of certain of plaintiff s clients and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale of a number of 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 s clients by the Company was approximately $242 million. The complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On August 13, 2010, defendants removed this action to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and on September 13, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the state court. On December 28, 2010, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant the motion to remand. The defendants objected to the magistrate's report and recommendation on January 18, 2011.
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribas Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiffs subsidiaries of a number of mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiffs subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On September 8, 2010, defendants removed this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and on October 1, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the state court.
In July 15, 2010, China Industrial Development Bank ("CIDB") filed a complaint against the Company, which is styled China Industrial Development Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. 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 CIDB, and that the Company knew that the assets backing the CDO were of poor quality when it entered into the credit default swap with CIDB. The complaint seeks compensatory damages related to the approximately $228 million that CIDB alleges it has already lost under the credit default swap, rescission of CIDB's obligation to pay an additional $12 million, punitive damages, equitable relief, fees and costs. On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed two complaints against the Company and other defendants. One was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois and is styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. The other was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California and is styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. The complaints allege 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 the two actions was approximately $203 million and $75 million respectively. The complaint filed in Illinois raises claims
Morgan Stanley
I
under Illinois law. The complaint filed in California raises claims under the federal securities laws, Illinois law and California law. Both complaints seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. The defendants removed both actions to federal court, on November 23, 2010 and November 24, 2010, respectively. On January 18, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois remanded the Illinois action to the state court. On December 23, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the California action from the United States District Court for the Central District of California to the state court.
On December 6, 2010, MBIA Insurance Corporation ("MBIA") filed a complaint against the Company related to MBIA's contract to insure approximately $223 million of residential mortgage backed securities related to a second lien residential mortgage backed securitization sponsored by the Company in June 2007. The complaint is styled MBIA Insurance Corporation v. Morgan Stanley, et al. and is pending in New York Supreme Court, Westchester County. The complaint asserts claims for fraud, breach of contract and unjust enrichment and alleges, among other things, that the Company misled MBIA regarding the quality of the loans contained in the securitization, that loans contained in the securitization breached various representations and warranties and that the loans have been serviced inadequately. The complaint seeks, among other relief, compensatory and punitive damages, an order requiring the Company to comply with the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents and/or to indemnify MBIA for losses resulting from the Company's alleged breach of the transaction documents, as well as costs, interests and fees. On February 2, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
China Matter.
As disclosed in February 2009, the Company uncovered actions initiated by an employee based in China in an overseas real estate subsidiary that appear to have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company terminated the employee, reported the activity to appropriate authorities and is cooperating with investigations by the United States Department of Justice and the SEC.
Item 4. [Removed and Reserved]
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Acr of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2011 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact name of"Registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212) 761-4000
(Sratc or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices. including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Title of each class which registered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Series A, S0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6'A% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6 Va% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
5 V4% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Capital Protected Notes due September 30, 2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
MPSSM due March 30, 2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
Market Vectors ETNs duc March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs duc April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) . NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley Cushingยฎ MLP High Income Index ETNs duc March 21, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Crude Oil Linked ETNs due July 1, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES [x] NO Q
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES ? NO [x]
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES |x| NO ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES [x] NO [~J
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [X] Accelerated Filer fj
Non-Accelerated Filer ? Smaller reporting company fj
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES O NO [x]
As of June 30, 2011, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $44,205,856,161. This calculation does not reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of January 31, 2012, there were 1,978,634,958 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2012 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Fonn 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, including, among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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.
In many proceedings, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount of any loss. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek substantial or indeterminate damages. 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, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings in question, before a loss or additional loss or range of loss or additional loss can be reasonably estimated for any proceeding. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity focused on residential mortgage and credit crisis related matters 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 regarding residential mortgages and related securities in the future and, while the Company has identified below certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from residential mortgage claims lhat have not yet been notified to the Company or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS"), collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass through certificates. These matters include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's disclosures to investors, and the Company's handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other
Morgan Stanley
parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, which is styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's common stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its common stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On December 9, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al., was filed in the SDNY asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants knew or should have known that from January 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008, the plans' investment in Company stock was imprudent given the extraordinary risks faced by the Company and its common stock during that period. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On July 20, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on October 28, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action, which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming the Company and certain present and former senior executives as defendants and asserting claims for violations of the securities laws. The amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et ai, is currently pending in the SDNY. Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 4, 2011, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint with respect to certain of their allegations. On June 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in response to the court's order of April 4, 2011. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), alleging, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of approximately $17 billion of mortgage pass through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. This case, which was consolidated with an earlier lawsuit and is currently styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation, is pending in the SDNY. On August 17, 2010, the court dismissed the claims brought by the lead plaintiff, but gave a different plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. On September 10, 2010, that plaintiff, together with several new plaintiffs, filed a second amended complaint which purported to assert claims against the Company and others on behalf of a class of investors who purchased approximately $4.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates issued in 2006 by seven trusts collectively containing residential mortgage loans. The second amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act, and alleged, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On September 15, 2011, the court granted in
Morgan Stanley
part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' request to file another amended complaint. On September 29, 2011, the defendants moved for reconsideration of a portion of the court's decision partially denying the motion to dismiss. On September 30, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint purporting to bring claims on behalf of a class of investors who purchased approximately $2.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates issued in 2006 by five trusts. The defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on October 17, 2011.
Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Secunties Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued or sponsored the securities and mortgage pass through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, relate to issuers or sponsors (or their affiliates) that have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership.
In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. The Company underwrote approximately $232 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On September 23, 2011, a group of underwriter defendants, including the Company, reached an agreement in principle with the class plaintiffs to settle the litigation. On December 15, 2011, the Court presiding over this action issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. The settlement hearing is currently scheduled for April 12, 2012.
In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to offerings of mortgage pass through certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. The Company underwrote over $1.4 billion of the principal amount of the offerings originally at issue. On June 21, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint. The Company underwrote approximately $46 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue following the court's June 21, 2010 decision. On May 17, 2010, certain putative plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene in the litigation in order to assert claims related to additional offerings. The principal amount of the additional offerings underwritten by the Company is approximately $1.2 billion. On June 21, 2011, the Company successfully opposed the motion to add the additional plaintiffs as to the Company. On July 20, 2011 and July 21, 2011, certain of the additional plaintiffs filed appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company is opposing the appeals.
Luther, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, involves claims related to the Company's role as an underwriter of various residential mortgage backed securities offerings issued by affiliates of Countrywide Financial Corporation. The amended complaint includes allegations that the registration statements and the offering documents contained false and misleading statements about the residential mortgage loans backing the securities. The Company underwrote approximately $6.3 billion of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On January 6, 2010, the Court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On May 18, 2011, a California court of appeals reversed the dismissal and reinstated the complaint. On December 19, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On February 3, 2012, defendants moved to stay the case pending resolution of a securities class action brought by the same plaintiffs, styled Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et ai, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Morgan Stanley
Other Litigation. On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Cheyne Finance (the "Cheyne SIV"). The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. On September 2, 2009, the court dismissed all of the claims against the Company except for plaintiffs' claims for common law fraud. On June 15, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 20, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs leave to replead their aiding and abetting common law fraud claims against the Company, and those claims were added in an amended complaint filed on August 5, 2010. On December 27, 2011, the court permitted plaintiffs to reinstate their causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty against the Company. The Company moved to dismiss these claims on January 10, 2012. On January 5, 2012, the court permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint and assert a negligence claim against the Company. The amended complaint was filed on January 9, 2012 and the Company moved to dismiss the negligence claim on January 17, 2012. On January 23, 2012, the Company moved for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. There are 15 plaintiffs in this action asserting claims related to approximately $983 million of securities issued by the SIV.
On September 25, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit styled Citibank, N.A. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International, PLC, pending in the SDNY. The lawsuit relates to a credit default swap referencing the Capmark VI CDO, which was structured by Citibank, N.A. ("Citi N.A."). At issue is whether, as part of the swap agreement, Citi N.A. was obligated to obtain the Company's prior written consent before it exercised its rights to liquidate Capmark upon the occurrence of certain contractually-defined credit events. Citi N.A. is seeking approximately $245 million in compensatory damages plus interest and costs. On May 25, 2011, the court issued an order denying the Company's motion for summary judgment and granting Citi N.A.'s cross motion for summary judgment. On June 27, 2011, the court entered a final judgment against the Company for approximately $269 million plus post-judgment interest, and the Company filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which appeal is now pending.
On December 14, 2009, Central Mortgage Company ("CMC") filed a complaint against tlie Company, in a matter styled Central Mortgage Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleged that that Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC improperly refused to repurchase certain mortgage loans that CMC, as servicer, was required to repurchase from the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") and the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"). On November 4, 2011, CMC filed an amended complaint adding claims related to its purchase of servicing rights in connection with approximately $4.1 billion of residential loans deposited into RMBS trusts sponsored by the Company. The amended complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, quasi-contract, equitable and tort claims and seeks compensatory damages and equitable remedies, including rescission, injunctive relief, damages, restitution and disgorgement. On January 9, 2012, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
Morgan Stanley
On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 28, 2010. The complaint 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company's individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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 were filed on June 10, 2010. The complaints 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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On April 18, 2011 , defendants in these actions filed an omnibus demurrer and motion to strike the amended complaints. On July 29, 2011 and September 8, 2011, the court presiding over both actions sustained defendants' demurrers with respect to claims brought under the Securities Act, and overruled defendants' demurrers with respect to all other claims.
On June 10, 2010, the Company was named as a new defendant in a pre-existing purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Rhinebridge pic ("Rhinebridge SIV"). The case is styled King County, Washington, et al. v. 1KB Deutsche Industriebank AG, et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud and aiding and abetting common law fraud and alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. On July 15, 2010, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint. That motion was denied on October 29, 2010. On December 27, 2011, the court permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint and assert causes of action for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty against the Company. The amended complaint was filed on January 10, 2012 and the Company moved to dismiss the negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty claims on January 31, 2012. The case is pending before the same judge presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV, described above. While reserving their ability to act otherwise, plaintiffs have indicated that they do not currently plan to file a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
On July 9, 2010, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, styled Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of certain clients of plaintiff s affiliates and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale ofa number of 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 plaintiffs affiliates' clients by the Company was approximately $242 million. The complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On February 11, 2011, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed a second complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts also styled Cambridge Place
Morgan Stanley
Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co Inc. et al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of clients of plaintiff's affiliates, and alleges that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in selling certain mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued or underwritten by the Company or sold to plaintiffs affiliates' clients by the Company was approximately $102 million. The complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On October 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in each action. On November 22, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaints.
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribus Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiffs subsidiaries of a number of mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiffs subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff s purchase ofsuch certificates. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On October 13, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims brought under the Securities Act. On January 27, 2012, the court, in a ruling from the bench, substantially overruled defendants' demurrers.
On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank ("CDIB") filed a complaint against the Company, which is styled Chinu Development Industrial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. 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 September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 28, 2011, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 21, 2011, the Company appealed the order denying its motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 7, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision denying the Company's motion to dismiss.
On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed two complaints against the Company and other defendants. One was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois and is styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. The other was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California and is styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. The complaints allege 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 the two actions was approximately $203 million and $75 million respectively. The complaint filed in Illinois raises claims under Illinois law. The complaint filed in California raises claims under the federal securities laws, Illinois law and California law. Both complaints seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On March 24, 2011, the Court presiding over Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On May 27, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion is currently pending. On September 15, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et ul. On December 1, 2011, defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which demurrer is currently pending.
Morgan Stanley
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 Rank of Boston v. Ally Financial, Inc. F/K/A GMAC LLC et al. The complaint 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 $550 million. The 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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On May 26, 2011, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and on June 22, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to state court.
On July 5, 2011, Allstate Insurance Company and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in New York State Supreme Court styled Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint 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 and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $104 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On September 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On October 14, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion is currently pending.
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. The complaint 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 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.
On September 2, 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, filed 17 complaints against numerous financial services companies, including the Company. A complaint against the Company and other defendants was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $11 billion. The complaint raises claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and seeks, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On September 26, 2011, defendants removed the action to the SDNY and on October 26, 2011, the FHFA moved to remand the action back to the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
On September 2, 2011, the FHFA, as conservator for Freddie Mac, also filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. General Electric Company et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass through certificates wilh an original unpaid balance of approximately $549 million. The complaint raises claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and seeks, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On October 6, 2011, defendants removed the action to the SDNY and on November 7, 2011, the FHFA moved to remand the action back to the Supreme Court of the Slate of New York.
On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each is styled Federal Deposit
Morgan Stanley
Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raise claims under both federal securities law and the Texas Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiffs purchase of such certificates.
On January 20, 2012, Sealink Funding Limited filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York styled Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") formerly sponsored by SachsenLB Europe. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the SPVs of certain mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold by the Company was approximately $556 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates.
On January 25, 2012, Dexia SA/NV and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York styled Dexia SA/NV et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint 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 total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $680 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates.
On January 25, 2012, Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York styled Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint 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 and/or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $486 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates.
Other Matters. On a case-by-case basis the Company has entered into agreements to toll the statute of limitations applicable to potential civil claims related to RMBS, CDOs and other mortgage-related products and services when the Company has concluded that it is in its interest to do so.
On October 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP (the "Law Firm"), which is purportedly representing a group of investment advisers and holders of mortgage pass through certificates issued by RMBS trusts that were sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The letter asserted that the Law Firm's clients collectively hold 25% or more of the voting rights in 17 RMBS trusts sponsored or underwritten by the Company and that these trusts have an aggregate outstanding balance exceeding $6 billion. The letter alleged generally that large numbers of mortgages in these trusts were sold or deposited into the trusts based on false and/or fraudulent representations and warranties by the mortgage originators, sellers and/or depositors. The letter also alleged generally that there is evidence suggesting that the Company has failed prudently to service mortgage loans in these trusts. On January 31, 2012, the Law Firm announced that its clients hold over 25% of the voting rights in 69 RMBS trusts securing over $25 billion of RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company, and that its clients had issued instructions to the trustees of these trusts to open investigations into
Morgan Stanley
allegedly ineligible mortgages held by these trusts. The Law Firm's press release also indicated that the Law Firm's clients anticipate that they may provide additional instructions to the trustees, as needed, to further the investigations.
Shareholder Derivative Matter.
On February 11, 2010, a shareholder derivative complaint styled Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America Retirement Fund, et al. v. John J. Mack et al. was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The complaint is purportedly for the benefit of the Company, and is brought against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company, to recover damages for alleged acts of corporate waste, breaches of the duty of loyally, and unjust enrichment based on the amount of compensation awarded to an undefined group of employees for fiscal years 2006, 2007 and 2009. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of compensation, benefits and profits, and institution of certain corporate governance reforms. On December 9, 2010, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and on February 4, 2011, plaintiffs noticed an appeal of that dismissal, which appeal is pending.
China Matter.
As disclosed in February 2009, the Company uncovered actions initiated by an employee based in China in an overseas real estate subsidiary that appear to have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company terminated the employee, reported the activity to appropriate authorities and is cooperating with investigations by the United States Department of Justice and the SEC.
The following matters were terminated during the quarter ended December 31, 2011:
In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, which had been pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, involved claims under the Securities Act related to three offerings by Washington Mutual Inc. in 2006 and 2007. The Company was one of several underwriters who participated in the offerings. The Company underwrote approximately $ 1.3 billion of the securities covered by the class certified by the court. On November 4, 2011, a final settlement among the parties was approved by the court.
Employees' Retirement System ofthe Government ofthe Virgin Islands v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et ai, which had been pending in the SDNY, involved claims for common law fraud and unjust enrichment against the Company related to the Libertas III CDO. On November 3, 2011, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice.
MBIA Insurance Corporation v. Morgan Stanley, et al. which had been pending in New York Supreme Court, Westchester County, involved claims for fraud, breach of contract and unjust enrichment against the Company related to MBIA Insurance Corporation's ("MBIA's") contract to insure approximately $223 million of residential mortgage pass through certificates related a second lien securitization sponsored by the Company in June 2007. On December 13, 2011, the Company and MBIA entered into an agreement to settle this litigation and to resolve certain claims that the Company had against MBIA.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washingron, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Sccrion 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2012 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charier)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212) 761-4000
(State or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Reg isirant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Tide of each class which registered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value New York Slock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1 /l ,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Series A, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6 Va% Capital Securilics of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6 Va% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty wilh respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
5 Va% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Market Vectors ETNs duc March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley Cushingยฎ MLP High Income Index ETNs duc March 21, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Crude Oil Linked ETNs due July 1, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES [X] NO O Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required lo file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Act. YES D NO [X]
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required lo file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES [X] NO fj
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES (x] NO fj
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part HI of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [x]
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [x] Accelerated Filer fj
Non-Accelerated Filer ? Smaller reporting company fj
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES (~J NO IS]
As of June 29, 2012, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $28,757,715,880. This calculation docs not reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of February 5, 2013, there were 1,961,257,664 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy slatcment for its 2013 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, and involving, among olher matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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 dale 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.
In many proceedings, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount of any loss. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek substantial or indeterminate damages. 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, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings in question, before a loss or additional loss or range of loss or additional loss can be reasonably estimated for any proceeding. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity focused on residential mortgage and credit crisis related matters 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 regarding residential mortgages and related securities in the future and, while the Company has identified below certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from residential mortgage claims that have not yet been notified to the Company or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS"), collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass-through certificates. These matters include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's disclosures to investors, and the Company's handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.
Morgan Stanley
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's common stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its common stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On March 26, 2012, defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the complaint.
On March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al, was filed in the SDNY asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401 (k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants knew or should have known that from January 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008, the plans' investment in Company stock was imprudent given the extraordinary risks faced by the Company and its common stock during that period. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On July 20, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on October 28, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On February 12, 2008, a purported class action, styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al, was filed in the SDNY against the Company and certain present and former executives asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result ofsuch purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint related in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also included allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January 18, 2013. On February 14, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit").
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), which is now styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation and is pending in the SDNY. The third amended complaint, filed on September 30, 2011, alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On January 11, 2013, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration which sought to expand the offerings at issue in the litigation based on recent precedent from the Second Circuit. On January 31, 2013, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint, in which they purport to represent investors who purchased approximately $7.82 billion in mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2006 by 14 trusts.
Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass-through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification,
Morgan Stanley
unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may he impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued or sponsored the securities and mortgage pass-through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases, including In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, relate to issuers or sponsors (or their affiliates) that have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership.
In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. The Company underwrote approximately $232 million ofthe principal amount ofthe offerings at issue. A group of underwriter defendants, including the Company, settled the main litigation on December 2, 2012. The underwriter defendants, including the Company, continue to defend claims by investors who opted out of the settlement or who purchased securities not covered by the settlement.
In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to offerings of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. On June 21, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint. The Company underwrote approximately $46 million of the principal amount of the offerings currently at issue. In July 2011, certain putative additional plaintiffs appealed the court's June 2011 order denying the motion to add them as additional plaintiffs as to the Company. The Company is opposing the appeals. On August 17, 2012, the court granted class certification. On October 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to expand the offerings at issue in the litigation, relying on recent precedent from the Second Circuit. Defendants have opposed the motion. If the motion is granted and the offerings are included in the class that is certified, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company at issue in the litigation will be approximately $1.68 billion.
Luther, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al, pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, was filed on November 14, 2007 and involves claims related to the Company's role as an underwriter of various residential mortgage backed securities offerings issued by affiliates of Countrywide Financial Corporation. The amended complaint includes allegations that the registration statements and the offering documents contained false and misleading statements about the residential mortgage loans backing the securities. The Company underwrote approximately $6.3 billion of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On December 19, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. In February 2012, defendants moved to stay the case pending resolution of a securities class action brought by the same plaintiffs, styled Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et ai, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In June 2012, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The motion to remand the matter was denied in August 2012.
Other Litigation. On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Cheyne Finance PLC and Cheyne Finance LLC (together, the "Cheyne SIV"). The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. The plaintiffs currently assert allegations of aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation relating to approximately $852 million of securities issued by the Cheyne SIV. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in June 2010. The court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment on the aiding and abetting fraud claim in August 2012. The Company's motion for summary judgment on the negligent misrepresentation claim, filed on November 30, 2012, is pending. The court has set a trial date of May 6, 2013. There are currently 14 named plaintiffs in the action claiming damages of approximately $638 million, as well as punitive damages.
Morgan Stanley
On December 14, 2009, Central Mortgage Company ("CMC") filed a complaint against the Company, in a matter styled Central Mortgage Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleged that that Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC improperly refused to repurchase certain mortgage loans that CMC, as servicer, was required to repurchase from the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") and the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"). On November 4, 2011, CMC filed an amended complaint adding claims related to its purchase of servicing rights in connection with approximately $4.1 billion of residential loans deposited into RMBS trusts sponsored by the Company. The amended complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, quasi-contract, equitable and tort claims and seeks compensatory damages and equitable remedies, including rescission, injunctive relief, damages, restitution and disgorgement. On August 7, 2012, the court granted in part the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. The amended complaint, filed on September 28, 2010, 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company's individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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 were filed on June 10, 2010. The amended complaints 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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On July 29, 2011 and September 8, 2011, the court presiding over both actions sustained defendants' demurrers with respect to claims brought under the Securities Act, and overruled defendants' demurrers with respect to all other claims.
On June 10, 2010, the Company was named as a new defendant in a pre-existing action related to securities issued by a SIV called Rhinebridge PLC and Rhinebridge LLC (together, the "Rhinebridge SIV"). The case is styled King County, Washington, et al. v. 1KB Deutsche Industriebank AG, et al. and is pending in the SDNY before the same judge presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV, described above. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence on May 4, 2012. On September 7, 2012, the Company moved for summary judgment with respect to the remaining claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and aiding and abetting fraud. On January 3, 2013, the court granted the motion for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims and denied it with respect to the aiding and abetting fraud claim. The two named plaintiffs claim approximately $65 million in lost principal and interest, as well as punitive damages.
On July 9, 2010 and February 11, 2011, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed two separate complaints against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, both styled Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et
Morgan Stanley
al. The complaints assert claims on behalf of certain clients of plaintiffs affiliates and allege that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale of a number of 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's affiliates' clients by the Company in the two matters was approximately $344 million. The complaints raise claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act and seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On October 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in each action. On November 22, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaints. On March 12, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs standing to bring suit. Defendants sought interlocutory appeal from that decision on April 11, 2012. On April 26, 2012, defendants filed a second motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which the court denied, in substantial part, on October 2, 2012.
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribas Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiffs subsidiaries of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiffs subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase ofsuch certificates. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On October 13, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims brought under the Securities Act. On January 27, 2012, the court, in a ruling from the bench, substantially overruled defendants' demurrers. On March 5, 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a demurrer to certain causes of action in the second amended complaint, which the court overruled on July 24, 2012.
On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank ("CDIB") filed a complaint against the Company, which is styled China Development Industrial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County ("Supreme Court of NY, NY County"). 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 September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion lo dismiss the complaint. On February 28, 2011, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 7, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision denying the Company's motion to dismiss.
On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed two complaints against the Company and other defendants. One was filed 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 other was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. The complaints allege 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 the two actions was approximately $203 million and $75 million respectively. The complaint filed in Illinois raises claims under Illinois law. The complaint filed in California raises claims under the federal securities laws, Illinois law and California law. Both complaints seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On March 24, 2011, the court presiding over Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On May 27, 2011,
Morgan Stanley
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was denied on September 19, 2012. The Company filed its answer on December 21, 2012. On September 15, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. On December 1,
defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on statute of limitations and statute of repose grounds, which demurrer was overruled on June 28, 2012. On August 31, 2012, defendants filed demurrers on the merits of the complaint.
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 $550 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 ofsuch 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.
On July 5, 2011, Allstate Insurance Company and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 9, 2011 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 and/ or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $104 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On October 14, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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. On May 21,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was denied on August 3, 2012. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in November 2013.
On September 2, 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, filed 17 complaints against numerous financial services companies, including the Company. A complaint against the Company and other defendants was filed in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass-through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $11 billion. The complaint raises claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and seeks, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On September 26, 2011, defendants removed the action to the SDNY and on October 26, 2011, the FHFA moved to remand the action back to the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. On May 11, 2012, plaintiff withdrew its motion to remand. On July 13, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which motion was denied in large part on November 19, 2012. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in January 2015.
Morgan Stanley
On September 2, 2011, the FHFA, as conservator for Freddie Mac, also filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. General Electric Company et al. The complaint alleged that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass-through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $549 million. The complaint raised claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and sought, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On October 6, 2011, defendants removed the action to the SDNY. On January 22, 2013, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to all defendants.
On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each was styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleged that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raised claims under both federal securities law and the Texas Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On March 20, 2012, the Company filed answers to the complaints in both cases. On June 13, 2012, the Company removed the cases to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On June 21, 2012, the Company moved to transfer the action to the SDNY. On November 27, 2012, the court granted the plaintiffs motion to remand the action to Texas state court and denied the Company's motion to transfer the case to New York. On January 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions with respect to plaintiff's claims. On February 6, 2013, the FDIC filed an amended consolidated complaint.
On January 20, 2012, Sealink Funding Limited filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") formerly sponsored by SachsenLB Europe. An amended complaint was filed on May 21, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the SPVs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold by the Company was approximately $507 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On September 7, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On January 25, 2012, Dexia SA/NV and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Dexia SA/NV et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 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 total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $626 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/ or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On August 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On January 25, 2012, Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 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 and/or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $411 million. The amended complaint raises common
Morgan Stanley
law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases ofsuch certificates. On July 27, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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, el 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 ofsuch 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 January 23, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On April 25, 2012, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and certain affiliates filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on June 29, 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 total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company was approximately $758 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, rescission, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages, as well as punitive damages, associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On September 21, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On August 7, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4SL (together, the "Trust") against the Company. The matter is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $303 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreement underlying the transaction, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On October 8, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
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, NY County. 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. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreements underlying the transactions, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On October 9, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On August 10, 2012, the FDIC, as receiver for Colonial Bank, filed two complaints against the Company in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Alabama. The first action is styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as
Morgan Stanley
I
i
i
I
I i
j
i
I
i
I
Receiver for Colonial Bank v. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. et al. and alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Colonial Bank of a mortgage pass-through certificate backed by a securitization trust containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of the certificate allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to Colonial Bank was approximately $65 million. On September 12, 2012, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, and on October 12, 2012, plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court. The second action is styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Colonial Bank v. Countrywide Securities Corporation et al. and alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Colonial Bank of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The tolal amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to Colonial Bank was approximately $144 million. On September 10, 2012, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, and on September 21, 2012, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On October 11, 2012, plaintiff moved to remand the case back to state court, which motion was denied on December 7, 2012. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 22, 2013. The complaints each raise claims under federal securities law and the Alabama Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with Colonial Bank's purchase of such certificates.
On September 28, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX against the Company styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-I3ARX v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor in interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., pending in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. U.S. Bank filed an amended complaint on January 17, 2013, which asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $609 million, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory judgment relief, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest.
On October 5, 2012, a complaint was filed against the Company and others in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Phoenix Light SF Limited et al v. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs, or their assignors, of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs or their assignors by the Company was approximately $344 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation and rescission based on mutual mistake and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, punitive damages or alternatively rescission or rescissionary damages associated with the purchase of such certificates. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on December 14, 2012.
On May 1, 2012, Asset Management Fund d/b/a AMF Funds and ceitain of its affiliated funds filed a summons with notice against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Asset Management Fund d/b/a AMF Funds et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $122 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common-law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages and rescission. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on October 22, 2012. On December 3, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On November 16, 2012, 1KB International S.A. and an affiliate filed a summons with notice against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled 1KB International S.A. In
Morgan Stanley
Liquidation v. Morgan Stanley et al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $147 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation as well as contract claims. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages, and rescission.
On November 21, 2012, Deutsche Zentral Genossenshaftsbank AG and an affiliate filed a summons with notice against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Deutsche Zentral Genossenshaftsbank AG, New York Branch, d/b/a DZ Bank AG New York Branch v. Morgan Stanley et al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $694 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation as well as contract claims. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages, and rescission.
On November 28, 2012, Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of an unspecified amount of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs purchases of such certificates. On February 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On December 14, 2012, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Merrill Lynch et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $628 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting fraud, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages.
On January 10, 2013, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-IOSL against the Company. The complaint is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL, 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, NY County. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $300 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order requiring the Company to comply with the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest.
On January 25, 2013, the FHFA filed a summons with notice on behalf of the Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI, against the Company. The matter is styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 007-NCI v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.25 billion,
Morgan Stanley
breached various representations and warranties. The notice seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest.
On January 30, 2013, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a summons with notice on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX against the Company. The matter is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX, by U.S. Bank National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor-by-merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $650 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest.
On August 24, 2012, HSH Nordbank AG and certain affiliates filed a summons with notice against the Company, ceitain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled HSH Nordbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiff was approximately $524 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages, and rescission. An amended summons with notice was filed on November 28, 2012.
On August 29, 2012, Bank Hapoalim B.M. filed a summons with notice against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $141 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages, and rescission. An amended summons with notice was filed on December 4, 2012.
Other Matters. On a case-by-case basis the Company has entered into agreements to toll the statute of limitations applicable to potential civil claims related to RMBS, CDOs and other mortgage-related products and services when the Company has concluded that it is in its interest to do so.
On October 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP (the "Law Firm"), which is purportedly representing a group of investment advisers and holders of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by RMBS trusts that were sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The letter asserted that the Law Firm's clients collectively hold 25% or more of the voting rights in 17 RMBS trusts sponsored or underwritten by the Company and that these trusts have an aggregate outstanding balance exceeding $6 billion. The letter alleged generally that large numbers of mortgages in these trusts were sold or deposited into the trusts based on false and/or fraudulent representations and warranties by the mortgage originators, sellers and/or depositors. The letter also alleged generally that there is evidence suggesting that the Company has failed prudently to service mortgage loans in these trusts. On January 31, 2012, the Law Firm announced that its clients hold over 25% of the voting rights in 69 RMBS trusts securing over $25 billion of RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company, and that its clients had issued instructions to the trustees of these trusts to open investigations into allegedly ineligible mortgages held by these trusts. The Law Firm's press release also indicated that the Law Firm's clients anticipate that they may provide additional instructions to the trustees, as needed, to further the investigations. On September 19, 2012, the Company received two purported Notices of Non-Performance from the Law Firm purportedly on behalf of the holders of significant voting rights in various trusts securing over $28 billion of residential mortgage backed securities sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The Notice purports
Morgan Stanley
to identify certain covenants in Pooling and Servicing Agreements ("PSAs") that the holders allege that the Servicer and Master Servicer failed to perform, and alleges that each of these failures has materially affected the rights of certificate holders and constitutes an ongoing event of default under the relevant PSAs. On November 2, 2012, the Company responded to the letters, denying the allegations therein.
On April 2, 2012, the Company entered into a Consent Order (the "Order") with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the "Federal Reserve") relating to the servicing of residential mortgage loans. The terms of the Order are substantially similar and, in many respects, identical to the orders entered into with the Federal Reserve by other large U.S. financial institutions. The Order, which is available on the Federal Reserve's website, sets forth various allegations of improper conduct in servicing by Saxon, requires that the Company and its affiliates cease and desist such conduct, and requires that the Company, and its Board of Directors and affiliates, take various affirmative steps. The Order requires (i) the Company to engage an independent third-party consultant to conduct a review of certain foreclosure actions or proceedings that occurred or were pending between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010; (ii) the adoption of policies and procedures related to management of third parties used to outsource residential mortgage servicing, loss mitigation or foreclosure; (iii) a "validation report" from an independent third-party consultant regarding compliance with the Order for the first year; and (iv) submission of quarterly progress reports as to compliance with the Order by the Company's the Board of Directors. The Order also provides that the Company will be responsible for the payment of any civil money penalties or compensatory payments assessed by the Federal Reserve related to such alleged conduct, which penalties or payments have not yet been determined. On January 15, 2013, the Company entered into a settlement with the Federal Reserve which resulted in tlie early termination of the foreclosure review process required by the Order and, in its place, the Company agreed to pay into a settlement fund and to pay additional funds for borrower relief efforts. The Federal Reserve has reserved the ability to impose civil monetary penalties on Saxon.
Commercial Mortgage Related Matter.
On January 25, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in The Bank of New York Mellon Trust, National Association v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc., a litigation pending in the SDNY. The suit, brought by the trustee of a series of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, alleges that the Company breached certain representations and warranties with respect to an $81 million commercial mortgage loan that was originated and transferred to the trust by the Company. The complaint seeks, among other things, to have the Company repurchase the loan and pay additional monetary damages. On June 27, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, but directed the filing of an amended complaint. On July 29, 2011, the Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint. On September 21, 2012, the Company and plaintiff filed motions for summary judgment.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2013 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exacr name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212)761-4000
(Scire or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Title of each class which registered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing l/l,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Series A, S0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing l/l,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred
Stock, Scries E, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred
Stock, Scries F, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6V4% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6V4% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
53/4% Capital Secunties of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley Cushingยฎ MLP High Income Index ETNs due March 21, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Crude Oil Linked ETNs duc July 1, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 ofthe Securities Act. YES [x] NO fj
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES fj NO (x)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES [x] NO ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES [x] NO Q
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part 111 of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. I I
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. Sec the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [x] Accelerated Filer fj
Non-Accelerated Filer fj Smaller reporting company fj
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule l2b-2). YES O NO [X]
As of June 28, 2013, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $45,831,657,254. This calculation does not reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of January 31, 2014, there were 1,975,673,438 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2014 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 arc bankrupt or in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time lo time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, and involving, among other matters, sales and trading activities, financial products or offerings sponsored, underwritten or sold by the Company, and accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
The Company contests liability and/or the amount of damages as appropriate in each pending matter. Where available infonnation indicates that it is probable a liability had been incurred at the dale 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.
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. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings or investigations will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings and investigations where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or government 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, detennination 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. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings and investigations will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings or investigations could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by government 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 certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain federal and state regulatory and governmental entities, including among others various members of the RMBS Working Group of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS"), collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass-
Morgan Stanley
through certificates. These matters include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's disclosures to investors, and the Company's handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.
On January 30, 2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the Staff ofthe Enforcement Division of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") to resolve an investigation related to certain subprime RMBS transactions sponsored and underwritten by the Company in 2007. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, the Company would be charged with violating Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, and the Company would pay disgorgement and penalties in an amount of $275 million and would neither admit nor deny the SEC's findings. The SEC has not yet presented the proposed settlement to the Commission and no assurance can be given that it will be accepted.
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401 (k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al., was filed in the SDNY asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401 (k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants knew or should have known that from January 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008, the plans' investment in Company stock was imprudent given the extraordinary risks faced by the Company and its common stock during that period. On March 28, 2013, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss both actions. Plaintiffs filed notices of appeal on June 27, 2013 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") in both matters, which have been consolidated on appeal.
On February 12, 2008, a purported class action, styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al, was filed in the SDNY against the Company and certain present and former executives asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result ofsuch purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint related in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, and also included allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January 18, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Second Circuit, which appeal is pending.
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), which is now styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation and is pending in the SDNY. The third amended complaint, filed on September 30, 2011, alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On January 31, 2013, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint, in which they purport to represent investors who purchased approximately $7.82 billion in mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2006 by 13 trusts. On August 30, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.
On May 14, 2009, the Company was named as one of several underwriter defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act which is now styled In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation and is pending in the SDNY. The claims against the Company relate to offerings of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by several trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancoqj during
Morgan Stanley
2006 and 2007. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates contained false and misleading infonnation concerning the pools of residential loans lhat backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The amount of the certificates underwritten by the Company at issue in the litigation was approximately $1.68 billion. On August 17, 2012, the court granted class certification with respect to one offering underwritten by the Company. On August 30, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the certified class to include additional offerings. IndyMac Bank, which was the sponsor of these securitizations, filed for bankruptcy on July 31, 2008, and the Company's ability to be indemnified by IndyMac Bank is limited.
On October 25, 2010, the Company, certain affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle ("SPV"), were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by the SPV in Singapore, commonly referred to as Pinnacle Notes. The case is styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. An amended complaint was filed on October 22, 2012. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 22, 2013 and granted class certification on October 17, 2013. On October 30, 2013, defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the court's decision granting class certification. On January 31, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors by structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited subsequently from the securities' failure. In addition, the second amended complaint alleges that the securities' offering materials contained material misstatements or omissions regarding the securities' underlying assets and the alleged conflicts of interest between the defendants and the investors. The second amended complaint asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs seek damages of approximately $138.7 million, rescission, punitive damages, and interest.
Other Litigation. On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. The amended complaint, filed on September 28, 2010, 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company's individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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 ai, respectively. Amended complaints were filed on June 10, 2010. The amended complaints 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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On August II, 2011, plaintiffs 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, plaintiffs 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.
Morgan Stanley
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribas Securities Corp et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiffs subsidiaries of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiffs subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase ofsuch certificates. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On October 13, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims brought under the Securities Act. On January 27, 2012, the court, in a ruling from the bench, substantially overruled defendants' demurrers. On March 5, 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a demurrer to certain causes of action in the second amended complaint, which the court overruled on July 24, 2012. The Company filed its answer to the second amended complaint on August 3, 2012. An initial trial of certain of plaintiffs claims is scheduled to begin in July 2015.
On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank ("CDIB") filed a complaint against the Company, which is styled China Development Industrial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and is pending in the 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 lo 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 March 10, 2011, the Company filed its answer to the complaint.
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 and asserts claims under Illinois law. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by the Company at issue in the action was approximately $203 million. The complaint seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On March 24, 2011, the court presiding over Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. 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.
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 plaintiffs 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.
On July 5, 2011, Allstate Insurance Company and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 9, 2011 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and
Morgan Stanley
material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The tolal amount of certificates allegedly issued and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $104 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On March 15, 2013, the court denied in substantial part the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which order the Company appealed on April 11, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the Company filed its answer to the amended complaint.
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.
On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each was styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company-LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleged that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raised claims under both federal securities law and the Texas Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On March 20, 2012, the Company filed answers to the complaints in both cases. On June 7, 2012, the two cases were consolidated. On January 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions with respect to plaintiffs claims. On February 6, 2013, the FDIC filed an amended consolidated complaint. On February 25, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions, which motion was denied in substantial part on April 26, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the FDIC filed a second amended consolidated complaint. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in November 2014.
On January 20, 2012, Sealink Funding Limited filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") formerly sponsored by SachsenLB Europe. An amended complaint was filed on May 21, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the SPVs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold by the Company was approximately $507 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On March 20, 2013, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On May 3, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On January 25, 2012, Dexia SA/NV and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Dexia SA/NV et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 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 total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs by the
Morgan Stanley
Company was approximately $626 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On October 16, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 18, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal and a motion to renew their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss.
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.
On August 7, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4SL (together, the "Trust") against the Company. The matter is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL, et al. v. 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 Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $303 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreement underlying the transaction, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On October 8, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
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. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreements underlying the transactions, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. 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.
On August 10, 2012, the FDIC, as receiver for Colonial Bank, filed a complaint against the Company in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Alabama styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Colonial Bank v. Citigroup Mortgage I^oan Trust Inc. et al The complaint alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Colonial Bank of a mortgage pass-through certificate backed by a securitization trust containing residential loans. The complaint raises claims under federal
Morgan Stanley
securities law and the Alabama Securities Act and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages. The total amount of the certificate allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to Colonial Bank was approximately $65 million. On September 13, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 12, 2013.
On September 28, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX against the Company styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-I3ARX v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor in interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., pending in the Supreme Court of NY. U.S. Bank filed an amended complaint on January 17, 2013, which asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $609 million, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory judgment relief, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On March 18, 2013, the Company filed a motion lo dismiss the complaint.
On October 22, 2012, Asset Management Fund d/b/a AMF Funds and certain of its affiliated funds filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Asset Management Fund d/b/a AMF Funds et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $122 million. The complaint asserts causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, monetary and punitive damages. On December 3, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 18, 2013, the court dismissed claims with respect to seven certificates purchased by the plaintiff. The remaining claims relate to certificates with an original balance of $10.6 million. On September 12, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal concerning the court's decision granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed a notice of cross-appeal on September 26, 2013.
On December 14, 2012, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Merrill Lynch et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans totaling approximately $628 million. On March 15, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 17, 2013, the court signed a joint proposed order and stipulation allowing plaintiffs to replead their complaint and defendants to withdraw their motion to dismiss without prejudice. On October 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a new complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Morgan Stanley et al. The new complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $597 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On February 3, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On January 10, 2013, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006- 10SL against the Company. The complaint is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL, 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 trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $300 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order requiring the Company to comply with the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest. On March 11, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Morgan Stanley
On January 31, 2013, HSH Nordbank AG and certain affiliates filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, styled HSH Nordbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiff was approximately $524 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On April 12, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On February 14, 2013, Bank Hapoalim B.M. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $141 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On April 26, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On March 7, 2013, the Federal Housing Finance Agency filed a summons with notice on behalf of the trustee of the Saxon Asset Securities Trust, Series 2007-1, against the Company and an affiliate. The matter is styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Saxon Asset Securities Trust, Series 2007-1 v. Saxon Funding Management LLC and Morgan Stanley and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $593 million, breached various representations and warranties. The notice seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, indemnity, and interest.
On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs in Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiff was approximately $694 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On July 12,2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On May 17, 2013, plaintiff in 1KB International S.A. in Liquidation, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $132 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On July 26, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On July 2, 2013, the trustee, Deutsche Bank became the named plaintiff in Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee ofthe Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI (MSAC 2007-NCI) v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of NY under the caption Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I, Inc. On
Morgan Stanley
February 3, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and alleges, among olher things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.25 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, rescission and interest.
On July 8, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint in Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX, by U.S. Bank National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor-by-merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. The complaint, filed in the Supreme Court of NY, asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $650 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages and interest. On August 22, 2013, the Company a filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On August 5, 2013, Landesbank Baden-Wiirttemberg and two affiliates filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY styled Landesbank Baden-Wiirttemberg et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $50 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission based upon mutual mistake, and seeks, among other things, rescission, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. On October 4, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On August 16, 2013, plaintiffs in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. 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 $567 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 California Corporate Securities Law of 1968, and violations of the Kansas Blue Sky Law and seeks, among other things, rescissionary and compensatory damages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 4, 2013. On December 27, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss in substantial part. The surviving claims relate to one certificate purchased by the plaintiff for approximately $17 million.
On August 26, 2013, a complaint was filed against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Phoenix Light SF Limited et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs, or their assignors, of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs or their assignors by the Company was approximately $344 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation and rescission based on mutual mistake and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, punitive damages or alternatively rescission or rescissionary damages associated with the purchase of such certificates. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on December 13, 2013.
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 SDNY. 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
Morgan Stanley
approximately $417 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for violations of Section II 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, rescissionary 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.
On November 6, 2013, Deutsche Bank, in its capacity as trustee, became the named plaintiff in Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC3 (MSAC 2007-NC3) v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of NY under the caption Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, solely in its capacity as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC3 v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as Successor-by-Merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.3 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, rescission, interest and costs. On December 16, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On December 24, 2013, Commerzbank AG London Branch filed a summons with notice against the Company and others in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Commerzbank AG London Branch v. UBS AG et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain other entities. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs assignors 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $207 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common-law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, civil conspiracy, tortious interference and unjust enrichment. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages of at least approximately $207 million and punitive damages.
On December 30, 2013, Wilmington Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-12, filed a complaint against the Company. The matter is styled Wilmington Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC et al. 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 trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $516 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, interest and costs.
On January 15, 2014, the FDIC, as receiver for United Western Bank filed a complaint against the Company and others in the District Court of the State of Colorado, styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for United Western Bank v. Banc of America Funding Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to United Western Bank of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold to United Western Bank by the Company was approximately $75 million. The complaint raises claims under both federal securities law and the Colorado Securities Act and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiff s purchase ofsuch certificates.
Other Matters. On a case-by-case basis the Company has entered into agreements to toll the statute of limitations applicable to potential civil claims related to RMBS, CDOs and other mortgage-related products and services when the Company has concluded that it is in its interest to do so.
Morgan Stanley
On October 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP (the "Law Firm"), which is purportedly representing a group of investment advisers and holders of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by RMBS trusts that were sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The letter asserted that the Law Finn's clients collectively hold 25% or more of the voting rights in 17 RMBS trusts sponsored or underwritten by the Company and that these trusts have an aggregate outstanding balance exceeding $6 billion. The letter alleged generally that large numbers of mortgages in these trusts were sold or deposited into the trusts based on false and/or fraudulent representations and warranties by the mortgage originators, sellers and/or depositors. The letter also alleged generally that there is evidence suggesting that the Company has failed prudently to service mortgage loans in these trusts. On January 31, 2012, the Law Firm announced that its clients hold over 25% of the voting rights in 69 RMBS trusts securing over $25 billion of RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company, and that its clients had issued instructions to the trustees of these trusts to open investigations into allegedly ineligible mortgages held by these trusts. The Law Firm's press release also indicated that the Law Finn's clients anticipate that they may provide additional instructions to the trustees, as needed, to further the investigations. On September 19, 2012, the Company received two purported Notices of Non-Performance from the Law Firm purportedly on behalf of the holders of significant voting rights in various trusts securing over $28 billion of residential mortgage backed securities sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The Notice purports to identify certain covenants in Pooling and Servicing Agreements ("PSAs") that the holders allege that the Servicer and Master Servicer failed to perform, and alleges that each of these failures has materially affected the rights of certificateholders and constitutes an ongoing event of default under the relevant PSAs. On November 2, 2012, the Company responded to the letters, denying the allegations therein.
Commercial Mortgage Related Matter.
On January 25, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in The Bank of New York Mellon Trust, National Association v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc., a litigation pending in the SDNY. The suit, brought by the trustee of a series of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, alleges that the Company breached certain representations and warranties with respect to an $81 million commercial mortgage loan that was originated and transferred to the trust by the Company. The complaint seeks, among other things, to have the Company repurchase the loan and pay additional monetary damages. On June 27, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, but directed the filing of an amended complaint. On July 29, 2011, the Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint. On June 20, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion for summary judgment, and denied the plaintiff s motion for summary judgment. On October 30, 2013, the Company filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment.
Matters Related to the CDS Market.
On July 1, 2013, the European Commission ("EC") issued a Statement of Objections ("SO") addressed to twelve financial firms (including the Company), the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. ("ISDA") and Markit Group Limited ("Markit") and various affiliates alleging that, between 2006 and 2009, the recipients breached European Union competition law by taking and refusing to take certain actions in an effort to prevent the development of exchange traded credit default swap ("CDS") products. The SO indicates that the EC plans to impose remedial measures and fines on the recipients. The Company and the other recipients filed a response to the SO on January 21, 2014. The Company and others have also responded to an investigation by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice related to the CDS market.
Beginning in May 2013, twelve financial firms (including the Company), as well as ISDA and Markit, were named as defendants in multiple purported antitrust class actions now consolidated into a single proceeding in the SDNY styled In Re: Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated United States antitrust laws from 2008 to present in connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of exchange traded CDS products. The complaints seek, among other relief, certification of a class of plaintiffs who purchased CDS from defendants in the United States, treble damages and injunctive relief.
Morgan Stanley
The following matters were terminated during or following the quarter ended December 31, 2013:
In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation, which had been pending in the SDNY, related to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. A group of underwriter defendants, including the Company, settled the main litigation on December 2, 2012. The remaining opt-out claims and appeals have now been resolved.
Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP v. Morgan Stanley, et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On November 15, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On December 3, 2013, the court dismissed the action.
Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Morgan Stanley, et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On December 6, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On January 2, 2014, the court dismissed the action.
Seagull Point, LLC, individually and on behalf of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007 HE-5 v. WMC Mortgage Corp., et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the loans in the trust breached various representations and warranties. On January 9, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of discontinuance, dismissing the action against all defendants.
Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al., which had been pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On December 6, 2013, plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of all of its claims against the Company. On January 27, 2014, the court dismissed the action.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al, which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiffs in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On January 23, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation.
Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al, which had been pending in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On February 11, 2014, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On February 20, 2014, the court dismissed the action.
Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. Morgan Stanley et al, which had been pending in the SDNY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On February 7, 2014, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On February 20, 2014, the court dismissed the action.
On December 12, 2013, the Company entered into an agreement with American International Group, Inc. ("AIG") to resolve AIG's potential claims against the Company related to AIG's purchases of certain mortgage pass-through certificates sponsored or underwritten by the Company backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 3 h 2014 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact name of Registrant as specified i n its charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212)761-4000
(State or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Title of each class which registered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1 /1,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Sencs A, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing l/l,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred
Stock, Series E, S0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1 /1,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred
Stock, Series F, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1 /1,000th interest in a share of 6.625% Non-Cumulative Prcferccd Stock,
Sencs G, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Prefened
Stock, Scries I, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6 Vi% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6 Vt% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty wilh respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
5 Ya% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty wilh respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley Cushing* MLP High Income Index ETNs due March 21, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES [x] NO CJ
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Act. YES CJ NO |x]
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject lo such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES M NO ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES [xj NO Q
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K. is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment lo this Form 10-K. CJ
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. Sec the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [x] Accelerated Filer CJ
Non-Accelerated Filer CJ Smaller reporting company CJ
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES CJ NO [x]
As of June 30, 2014, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $60,823,096,775. This calculation does not reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of January 31, 2015, there were 1,976,612,907 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2015 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.
I
I
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 olher litigation, arising in connection with its activities as a global diversified financial services institution. Certain ofthe 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, and involving, among other matters, sales and trading activities, financial products or offerings sponsored, underwritten or sold by the Company, and accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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.
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. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings or investigations will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings and investigations where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or government 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. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings and investigations will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings or investigations could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by government 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 certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company has received subpoenas and requests for infonnation from certain federal and state regulatory and governmental entities, including among others various members of the RMBS Working Group of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, such as the United States Department of Justice, Civil Division and several state Attorney General's Offices, concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related
Morgan Stanley
matters such as residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS"), collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass-through certificates. These matters, some of which are in advanced stages, include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's disclosures to investors, and the Company's handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.
In May 2014, the California Attorney General's Office ("CAAG"), which is one of the members of the RMBS Working Group, indicated that it has made certain preliminary conclusions that the Company made knowing and material misrepresentations regarding RMBS and that it knowingly caused material misrepresentations to be made regarding the Cheyne SIV, which issued securities marketed to the California Public Employees Retirement System. The CAAG has further indicated that it believes the Company's conduct violated California law and that it may seek treble damages, penalties and injunctive relief. The Company does not agree with these conclusions and has presented defenses to them to the CAAG.
On September 16, 2014, the Virginia Attorney General's Office filed a civil lawsuit, styled Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. Integra REC LLC v. Barclays Capital Inc., et ai, against the Company and several other defendants in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond related to RMBS. The lawsuit alleges that the Company and the other defendants knowingly made misrepresentations and omissions related to the loans backing RMBS purchased by the Virginia Retirement System ("VRS"). The complaint alleges VRS suffered total losses of approximately $384 million on these securities, but does not specify the amount of alleged losses attributable to RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The complaint asserts claims under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, as well as common law claims of actual and constructive fraud, and seeks, among other things, treble damages and civil penalties. On January 20, 2015, the defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint and a plea in bar seeking dismissal of the complaint.
In October 2014, the Illinois Attorney General's Office ("IL AG") sent a letter to the Company alleging that the Company knowingly made misrepresentations related to RMBS purchased by certain pension funds affiliated with the State of Illinois and demanding that the Company pay the IL AG approximately $88 million. The Company does not agree with these allegations and has presented defenses to them to the IL AG.
On January 13, 2015, the New York Attorney General's Office ("NYAG"), which is also a member of the RMBS Working Group, indicated that it intends to file a lawsuit related to approximately 30 subprime securitizations sponsored by the Company. NYAG indicated that the lawsuit would allege that the Company misrepresented or omitted material information related to the due diligence, underwriting and valuation of the loans in the securitizations and the properties securing them and indicated that its lawsuit would be brought under the Martin Act. The Company does not agree with NY AG's allegations and has presented defenses to them to NYAG.
On February 25, 2015, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the United States Department of Justice, Civil Division and the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California, Civil Division (collectively, the "Civil Division") to pay $2.6 billion to resolve certain claims that the Civil Division indicated it intended to bring against the Company. While the Company and the Civil Division have reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter, there can be no assurance that the Company and the Civil Division will agree on the final documentation of the settlement.
Class Actions
On February 12, 2008, a purported class action, styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et ai, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") against the Company and certain present and former executives asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint related in
Morgan Stanley
large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, and also included allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and olher matters. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January 18, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit"). On January 12, 2015, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action.
On October 25, 2010, the Company, certain affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle ("SPV"), were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by the SPV in Singapore, commonly referred to as Pinnacle Notes. The case is styled Ge Dandong, el al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The court granted class certification on October 17, 2013. The second amended complaint, filed on January 31, 2014, alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors by structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited subsequently from the securities' failure, that the securities' offering materials contained material misstatements or omissions regarding the securities' underlying assets and alleged conflicts of interest between the defendants and the investors, and asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs seek damages of approximately $138.7 million, rescission, punitive damages, and interest. On July 17, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation, which received preliminary court approval December 2, 2014. The final approval hearing is scheduled for July 2, 2015.
Other Litigation. On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. The amended complaint, filed on September 28, 2010, 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company's individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 7, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's demand for a jury trial.
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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On August 11, 2011, plaintiffs federal securities law claims were dismissed with prejudice. On February 9, 2012, defendants' demurrers with respect to all other claims were overruled. On December 20, 2013, plaintiffs negligent misrepresentation claims were dismissed with prejudice. On January 26, 2015, the plaintiff requested dismissal with prejudice of all remaining claims against the Company in the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al. action.
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribus Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiffs subsidiaries of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts
Morgan Stanley
j
I
I
containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff's subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On October 13, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims brought under the Securities Act. On January 27, 2012, the court substantially overruled defendants' demurrers. On March 5, 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a demurrer to certain causes of action in the second amended complaint, which the court overruled on July 24, 2012. On November 24, 2014, plaintiffs negligent misrepresentation claims were dismissed with prejudice. An initial trial of certain of plaintiffs claims is scheduled to begin in August 2015.
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.
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. A corrected amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2011. The corrected amended 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 and asserts claims under Illinois law. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by the Company at issue in the action was approximately $203 million. The complaint seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the corrected amended complaint on May 27, 2011, which was denied on September 19, 2012. On December 13, 2013, the court entered an order dismissing all claims related to one of the securitizations at issue. After that dismissal, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $78 million.
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 29, 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 plaintiffs 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 were granted in part and denied in part on September 30, 2013. On November 25, 2013 and July 16, 2014, respectively, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims against the Company with respect to two of the securitizations at issue. After these voluntary dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $358 million.
Morgan Stanley
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., el 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. On May 21, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was denied on August 3, 2012. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on January 20, 2015. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in July 2015.
On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each was styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Franklin Bank, S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleged that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raised claims under both federal securities law and the Texas Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On June 7, 2012, the two cases were consolidated. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions, which was denied in substantial part on April 26, 2013. The FDIC filed a second amended consolidated complaint on May 3, 2013. The Company filed a motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal as to the court's order denying its motion for summary judgment and special exceptions, which was denied on August 1, 2013. On October 7, 2014, the court denied the Company's motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying its motion for summary judgment and special exceptions and granted its motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying leave to file an interlocutory appeal. On November 21, 2014, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied on February 10, 2015. The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied Morgan Stanley's petition for interlocutory appeal on November 25, 2014. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in July 2015.
On January 20, 2012, Sealink Funding Limited filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") formerly sponsored by SachsenLB Europe. A second amended complaint, filed on March 20, 2013, alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the SPVs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold by the Company was approximately $507 million. The second amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On May 3, 2013, the Company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on April 18, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion. On May 1, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of that decision.
On January 25, 2012, Dexia SA/NV and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Dexia SA/NV et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 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 total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $626 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On
Morgan Stanley
October 16, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 18, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal. Plaintiffs also filed a motion to renew their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, which the court denied on June 23, 2014. On July 16, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that decision, which has been consolidated with the appeal of the motion to dismiss.
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. On October 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended 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 $1,073 billion. The amended complaint raises claims under the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law, as well as common law claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, 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 January 2, 2015, the court denied defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On August 7, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4SL (together, the "Trust") against the Company. The matter is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Ijoan Trust 2006-4SL, et al. v. 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 Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $303 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreement underlying the transaction, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On August 8, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.
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. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreements underlying the transactions, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. 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 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.
On August 10, 2012, the FDIC, as receiver for Colonial Bank, filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Alabama styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Colonial Bank v. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. et al. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 13, 2013. The complaint alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Colonial Bank of a mortgage pass-through certificate backed by a securitization trust containing residential loans. The complaint asserts claims under federal securities law and the Alabama Securities Act, and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages. The total amount of the certificate allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to Colonial Bank was approximately $65 million. On November 12, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was denied on April 10, 2014.
Morgan Stanley
On September 28, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX against the Company styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-I3ARX v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor in interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., pending in the Supreme Court of NY. U.S. Bank filed an amended complaint on January 17, 2013, which asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $609 million, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory judgment relief, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On September 30, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the court's September 30, 2014 decision.
On December 14, 2012, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Merrill Lynch et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans totaling approximately $628 million. On October 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a new complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Morgan Stanley et al. The new complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $597 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On February 3, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On January 10, 2013, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-IOSL against the Company. The complaint is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL, 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 trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $300 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order requiring the Company to comply with the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest. On August 8, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint.
On January 31, 2013, HSH Nordbank AG and certain affiliates filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, styled HSH Nordbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiff was approximately $524 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On April 12, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On February 14, 2013, Bank Hapoalim B.M. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $141 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things,
Morgan Stanley
compensatory and punitive damages. On April 22, 2014, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss in substantial part. On September 18, 2014, the Company filed a notice of appeal from the ruling denying defendants' motion to dismiss.
On March 7, 2013, the Federal Housing Finance Agency filed a summons with notice on behalf of the trustee of the Saxon Asset Securities Trust, Series 2007-1, against the Company and an affiliate. The matter is styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for tlie Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Saxon Asset Securities Trust, Series 2007-1 v. Saxon Funding Management LLC and Morgan Stanley and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $593 million, breached various representations and warranties. The notice seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, indemnity, and interest.
On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs in Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiff was approximately $694 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On June 10, 2014, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. On August 4, 2014, claims regarding two certificates were dismissed by stipulation. After these dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $644 million.
On May 17, 2013, plaintiff in 1KB International S.A. in Liquidation, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $132 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On October 30, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. All claims regarding four certificates were dismissed. After these dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $116 million. On December 1, 2014, the Company filed a notice of appeal from the Court's October 30, 2014 decision.
On July 2, 2013, the trustee, Deutsche Bank became the named plaintiff in Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee ofthe Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI (MSAC 2007-NCI) v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of NY under the caption Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I, Inc. On February 3, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.25 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, rescission and interest. On March 12, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
July 8, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint in Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX, by U.S. Bank National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as
Morgan Stanley
successor-by-merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. The complaint, filed in the Supreme Court of NY, asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $650 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages and interest. On August 22, 2013, the Company a filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on November 24, 2014.
On August 5, 2013, Landesbank Baden-Wurttemberg and two affiliates filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Landesbank Baden-Wiirttemberg et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $50 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission based upon mutual mistake, and seeks, among other things, rescission, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. On October 4, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On August 16, 2013, the plaintiff in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts in the sale to the plaintiff 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 $567 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 California Corporate Securities Law of 1968, and violations of the Kansas Blue Sky Law and seeks, among other things, rescissionary and compensatory damages. On December 27, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in substantial part. The surviving claims relate to one certificate purchased by the plaintiff for approximately $17 million. On November 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On December 15,2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in part.
On August 26, 2013, a complaint was filed against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Phoenix Light SF Limited et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs, or their assignors, of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs or their assignors by the Company was approximately $344 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation and rescission based on mutual mistake and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, punitive damages or alternatively rescission or rescissionary damages associated with the purchase of such certificates. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on December 13, 2013. On June 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. By stipulation dated July 18, 2014, the parties agreed that the Company's previously filed motion to dismiss would be deemed to be directed at the amended complaint.
On September 23, 2013, the plaintiff in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the SDNY. 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, rescissionary and compensatory
Morgan Stanley
damages. 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. On April 28, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs motion to strike certain of the defendants' affirmative defenses. On July 11, 2014, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order on the motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for certification of interlocutory appeal and a stay of all proceedings, which the court denied on September 30, 2014. On November 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
On November 6, 2013, Deutsche Bank, in its capacity as trustee, became the named plaintiff in Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC3 (MSAC 2007-NC3) v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of NY under the caption Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, solely in its capacity as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust. Series 2007-NC3 v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as Successor-by-Merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.3 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, rescission, interest and costs. On December 16, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On December 24, 2013, Commerzbank AG London Branch filed a summons with notice against the Company and others in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Commerzbank AG London Branch v. UBS AG et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain other entities. The complaint, which was filed on May 20, 2014, alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff's assignors 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 to plaintiffs' assignors was approximately $185 million. The complaint asserts causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, and aiding and abetting common law fraud and fraudulent concealment and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on December 5, 2014.
On December 30, 2013, Wilmington Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-12, filed a complaint against the Company. The matter is styled Wilmington Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC et al. 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 trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $516 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, interest and costs. On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On January 15, 2014, the FDIC, as receiver for United Western Bank filed a complaint against the Company and others in the District Court of the State of Colorado, styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for United Western Bank v. Banc of America Funding Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to United Western Bank of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold to United Western Bank by the Company was approximately $75 million. The complaint raises claims under both federal securities law and the Colorado Securities Act and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiff's purchase ofsuch certificates. On February 14, 2014, the defendants filed a notice removing the litigation to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On March 14, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action. On April 30, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Morgan Stanley
On April 28, 2014, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee for Morgan Stanley Structured Trust I 2007-1, filed a complaint against the Company. The matter is styled Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $735 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages, interest and costs. On July 21, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On September 19, 2014, Financial Guaranty Insurance Company ("FGIC") filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County ("Supreme Court of New York") styled Financial Guaranty Insurance Company v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. et al. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the net interest margin securities ("N1MS") in the trust breached various representations and warranties. FGIC issued a financial guaranty policy with respect to certain notes that had an original balance of approximately $475 million. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the NIM breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, reimbursement of certain payments made pursuant to the transaction documents, attorneys' fees and interest. On November 24, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On September 19, 2014, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC4, filed a summons with notice against the Company in the Supreme Court of New York styled Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, solely in its capacity as Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC4 v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor-by-merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.05 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The trustee filed its complaint on January 23, 2015, alleging breaches of representations and warranties, the repurchase obligation, and the duty to notify, and seeking, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents; compensatory, consequential, rescissory, equitable and/or punitive damages; attorneys' fees, costs and other related expenses, and interest.
On September 23, 2014, FGIC filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of New York styled Financial Guaranty Insurance Company v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. et al. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust breached various representations and warranties and defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to induce FGIC to issue a financial guaranty policy on certain classes of certificates that had an original balance of approximately $876 million. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and interest. On November 24, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Other Matters. On a case-by-case basis the Company has entered into agreements to toll the statute of limitations applicable to potential civil claims related to RMBS, CDOs and other mortgage-related products and services when the Company has concluded that it is in its interest to do so.
On October 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP (the "Law Firm"), which is purportedly representing a group of investment advisers and holders of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by RMBS trusts that were sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The letter asserted that the Law Finn's clients collectively hold 25% or more of the voting rights in 17 RMBS trusts sponsored or underwritten by the Company and that these trusts have an aggregate outstanding balance exceeding $6 billion. The letter alleged generally that large numbers of mortgages in these trusts were sold or deposited into the trusts based on false and/or fraudulent representations and warranties by the mortgage originators, sellers and/or depositors. The letter also alleged generally that there is evidence suggesting that the Company has failed prudently to service
Morgan Stanley
mortgage loans in these trusts. On January 31, 2012, the Law Finn announced that its clients hold over 25% of the voting rights in 69 RMBS trusts securing over $25 billion of RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company, and that its clients had issued instructions lo the trustees of these tmsts to open investigations into allegedly ineligible mortgages held by these trusts. The Law Firm's press release also indicated that the Law Firm's clients anticipate that they may provide additional instructions to the trustees, as needed, to further the investigations. On September 19, 2012, the Company received two purported Notices of Non-Performance from the Law Firm purportedly on behalf of the holders of significant voting rights in various trusts securing over $28 billion of residential mortgage backed securities sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The Notice purports to identify certain covenants in Pooling and Servicing Agreements ("PSAs") that the holders allege that the Servicer and Master Servicer failed to perfonn, and alleges that each of these failures has materially affected the rights of certificateholders and constitutes an ongoing event of default under the relevant PSAs. On November 2, 2012, the Company responded to the letters, denying the allegations therein.
Commercial Mortgage Related Matter.
On January 25, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in The Bank of New York Mellon Trust, National Association v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc., a litigation pending in the SDNY. The suit, brought by the trustee of a series of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, alleges that the Company breached certain representations and warranties with respect to an $81 million commercial mortgage loan that was originated and transferred to the trust by the Company. The complaint seeks, among other things, to have the Company repurchase the loan and pay additional monetary damages. On June 16, 2014, the court granted the Company's supplemental motion for summary judgment. On June 17, 2014, the court entered judgment in the Company's favor. On July 16, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
Matters Related to the CDS Market.
On July 1, 2013, the European Commission ("EC") issued a Statement of Objections ("SO") addressed to twelve financial firms (including the Company), the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. ("ISDA") and Markit Group Limited ("Markit") and various affiliates alleging that, between 2006 and 2009, the recipients breached European Union competition law by taking and refusing to take certain actions in an effort to prevent the development of exchange traded credit default swap ("CDS") products. The SO indicates that the EC plans to impose remedial measures and fines on the recipients. The Company and the other recipients of the SO filed a response to the SO on January 21, 2014, and attended oral hearings before the EC during the period May 12-19, 2014. The Company's oral hearing took place on May 15, 2014. The Company filed a supplemental response to the SO on July 11, 2014. The Company and others have also responded to an investigation by the Antitrust Division ofthe United States Department of Justice related to the CDS market.
Beginning in May 2013, twelve financial firms (including the Company), as well as ISDA and Markit, were named as defendants in multiple purported antitrust class actions now consolidated into a single proceeding in the SDNY styled In Re: Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated United States antitrust laws from 2008 to present in connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of exchange traded CDS products. The complaints seek, among other relief, certification of a class of plaintiffs who purchased CDS from defendants in the United States, treble damages and injunctive relief. On September 4, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
The following matters were terminated during or following the quarter ended December 31,2014:
In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation and Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al were purported class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401 (k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and fonner directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") relating to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses. Both cases were dismissed by the SDNY and their dismissal affirmed by the Second Circuit. On December 3, 2014, the time for plaintiffs to pursue a further appeal expired.
Morgan Stanley
In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation, which had been pending in the SDNY, was a putative class action involving allegations that, among other things, the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. On December 18, 2014, the parties' agreement to settle the litigation received final court approval, and on December 19, 2014, the court entered an order dismissing the action.
In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, which had been pending in the SDNY, was a class action involving allegations that, among other things, the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. On February 3, 2015, the court issued its final approval of the parties' agreement to settle the litigation and on February 23, 2015, the court entered a final judgment dismissing the action.
Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations 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. On January 16, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
M QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANG E ACT O F 1934
For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015
OR
? TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact Name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
1585 Broadway NewYork, NY 10036
(Address of principal executive
offices, including zip code)
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [x] No ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (ยง 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes [X] No Q
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [X] Accelerated Filer fj
Non-Accelerated Filer O Smaller reporting company Q
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ? Nog
As of April 30, 2015, there were 1,970,026,803 shares ofthe Registrant's Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, outstanding.
Part IIโOther Information.
Item 1. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the "Form 10-K") and those described below, 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, and involving, among other matters, sales and trading activities, financial products or offerings sponsored, underwritten or sold by the Company, and accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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 condensed 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 lo period may fluctuate significantly, given the current environment regarding government investigations and private litigation affecting global financial services firms, including the Company.
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. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings or investigations will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings and investigations where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or government 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. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings and investigations will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings or investigations could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by government 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 certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or are not yet determined to be material.
Morgan Stanley
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I -- GENERAL INFORM ATION
A. Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable:
Morgan Stanley
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
f<] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest: Morgan scanty t co. llc d/b/a Morgan Stanley t, company llc
OR
3. [] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
B. Business address of the Disclosing Party: isss Broadway
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: 212-762-5777 Fax: 212-507-3334 bmail: marty.cohen@morganstanley.com
Name of contact person: Martin cohen
Federal Employer Identification No. (ifyou have one): ;
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
1. Indicate the nature of the Disclosing Party:
Person [ ] Limited liability company
Publicly registered business corporation [ ] Limited liability partnership
Privately held business corporation [ ] Joint venture
Sole proprietorship [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
General partnership (Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
Limited partnership [ ] Yes [ ] No
Trust [x] Other (please specify)
Holding Company
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable:
Delaware
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ ] Yes [x] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management of the Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
See EXHIBIT A
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary of a trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 ofthe Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group. Inc. 7-1 Marunouchi 2-chome, Chiyoda-ku. Tokyo 100-8330. Japan 22 1%
State Street Corporation 70ne Lincoln Street. Boston, MA 02111 7.5%
Under Hem 2(e) ot the rules (the "Kules") regarding the bconomic anrJTjisclosure Statement and Aflidavit ("hUSTpTomulgated pursuant to Section 2-1 M-05u~bl IhcTMunicipal Code, Stale Street Corporations not required to separately file an EDS in its capacity as a "beneficial owner for a class of other third party investors." Under the Rules. State Street is considered "regulated and required to make periodic filings with the -federal Secunties and Exchange Commission under the Secunties and Exchange Act We believed similar reasoning applies to Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. in that Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc is a publicly traded company and all of its assets are held for tlie benefit of its shareholders Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc is also regulated and required lo make periodic filings with the federal Secunties and Exchange Commission under the Securities and Exchange act. The above ownership interests were obtained from filings that these entities have made with Ihe Secunties and Exchange Commission
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [x] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
lo be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(A dd sheets if necessary)
|x] Check here ifthe Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V -- CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [x] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), ifthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee ofthe City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article 1 is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Party and, if the Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted ofa criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any ofthe offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization ofa business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization ofa responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of cither the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date ofsuch Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee ofthe City, the Stale of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission ofsuch conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ofthe U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) ofthe Municipal Code.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any ofthe above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
See EXHIBIT B in lieu of response to items above
Page 6 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees ofthe Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
None
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient.
Based on a review of Firm expenditures records, and to the best of our knowledge, information and belief, the Disclosing Party has not given a gift to any City of Chicago official or employee.
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
fc] is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate ofa predatory lender may result in the loss ofthe privilege of doing business with the City."
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, il will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-1 10 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes [x] No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit ofthe City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.l., provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature of such interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. Ifthe Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply wilh these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matler voidable by the City.
_x 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of
the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI -- CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. Ifthe Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations ofthe City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or ifthe letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Parly will submil an updaled certification al Ihe end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy of the statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthe Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director ofthe Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect lo the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page II of 13
F. 1. The Disclosing Parly is not delinquent m the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicanl, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Parly is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection wilh the Matler certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent of the City, use any such contractor/subcontractor thai does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason lo believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F.L, F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
Morgan Stanley
(Print or type name of Disclosing Party) (Sign here)
Martin Cohen
(Print or type name of person signing)
Secretary
(Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date) $j <^-^^X'
at/^&y farft County, ยฃ//f/t.(state).
_ Notary Public.
Commission expires:
WARGARETT. DUGAN' PaSe 12 of ] 3
Nottfy PubSc.-gtate of New Yorfc No. 010061951,37 Qualified In.New York County CorniTiisslon Expires October 20. 2016
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers ofthe Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B.La., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary ofa legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [ xj No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
Exhibit A
Morgan Stanley-Current Appointments
Board Positions
frail
Bowles, Erskine B. Glocer, Thomas H. Gorman, James P. Herz, Robert ri. Jr., Rayford Wilkins, Kleinfeld, Klaus Miscik, Jami Nicolaisen, Donald T. Olayan, Hutham S. Owens, James W. Tamakoshi, Ryosuke Tanaka, Masaaki Traquina, Perry Tyson, Laura D'Andrea
Officers
Name '%^x. <>, . ,,,, v
Gorman, James P. Fleming, Gregory J. Grossman, Eric F. Hotsuki, Keishi
Kelleher, Colm Pruzan, Jonathan M.
Position
Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director
โขPosition
Chairman ofthe Board and Chief Executive Officer
President of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management and President of Investment Manaoement'
Chief Legal Officer
Chief Risk Officer
President of Institutional Securities
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Operating Officer
Exhibit B
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2009 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Kxaa name of Rcgistnmr as specified in its charier)
Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
Title of each class
1585 Broadway
NewYork, NY 10036
(Address of principal executive offices,
including zip code)
36-3145972
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
(212) 761-4000
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
Name of exchange on which registered
New York Stock Exchange
New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange NYSE Amcx LLC NYSE Area, Inc.
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value
Depositary Shares, each representing l/l,000th interest in a share or Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Scries A, $0.01
par value
6 'A% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
6 'A% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
5 W/o Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
6.60% Capital Secunties ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
6.60% Capital Secunties ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
6.45% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
Exchangeable Notes due December 30, 2010; Exchangeable Notes due June 30, 2011
BRIDGESSM due June 15,2010
Capital Protected Notes due April 20, 2010; Capital Protected Notes due July 20.2010 (2 issuances). Capital Protected Notes due
August 30, 2010; Capital Protected Notes due October 30, 2010. Capital Protected Noles due January 30, 2011, Capital Protected
NYSE Area, Inc.
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
NYSE Area, Inc.
NYSE Amex LLC
NYSE Amcx LLC
NYSE Area, Inc.
NYSE Area, Inc.
NYSE Area, Inc. NYSE Area, Inc. NYSE Area, Inc.
NYSE Area, Inc.
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
Notes due February 20, 2011; Capital Protected Notes due March 30, 2011 (2 issuances); Capital Protected Notes due June 30, 2011;
Capital Protected Notes due August 20, 2011; Capital Protected Notes due October 30, 2011; Capital Proteclcd Notes due
December 30, 2011, Capital Protected Notes due September 30, 2012
Capital Protected Notes due September 1,2010
MPS'" due June 15, 2010; MPS due December 30, 2010; MPS duc March 30, 2012
MPS due December 30, 2010
Stock Participation Notes due September 15, 2010; Stock Participation Noles duc December 30, 2010
Buffered PLUSSM duc December 20, 2010; Buffered PLUS due March 20,2011
PROPELSSM due December 30, 2011 (3 issuances)
Protected Absolute Return Barrier Notes due March 20, 2010; Protected Absolute Retum Barrier Notes duc July 20, 2010; Protected
Absolute Retum Barrier Notes duc August 20,2010, Protected Absolute Return Barrier Notes due March 20, 2011
Strategic Total Retum Securities due July 30, 2011
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances)
Targeted Income Strategic Total Retum Securities duc March 30, 2010; Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities due July 30.
2011; Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Secunties due January 15, 2012
Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities due October 30, 2011
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 ofthe Secunties Act. YES (x| NO L7J Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reporls pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Act. YES O NO [X]
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Secunties Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES |x| NO ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on us corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (g 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes (X| No ?
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or infonnation statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Fonn 10-K or any amendment to this Fonn 10-K. [x] Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule !2b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. (Check one)'
Accelerated Filer fl Smaller reporting company f-J
Large Accelerated Filer [xj Non-Accclcratcd Filer f-] (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2) YF.S Q NO [X]
As of June 30, 2009, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $38,566,093,047. This calculation does not reflect a determination that persons arc affiliates for any other purposes
As of January 31, 2010, there were 1,398,087,044 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated By Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2010 annual meeting of shareholders arc incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 ofthe 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 issuers that would otherwise be the primary defendants in such cases arc bankrupt or in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business including, among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
The Company contests liability and/or the amount of damages as appropriate in each pending matter. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, particularly in cases where claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages or where investigations and proceedings are in the early stages, the Company cannot predict with certainty the loss or range of loss, if any, related to such matters, how or if such matters will be resolved, when they will ultimately be resolved, or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, might be. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such pending matters will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such matters could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular future period depending on, among other things, the level ofthe Company's revenues or income for such period.
Residential Mortgage-Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related issues including collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass through certificates.
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, which is styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. On December 9, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action, which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming the Company and certain present and former senior executives as defendants and asserting claims for violations of the securities laws. The amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al, is currently pending in the SDNY. Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Morgan Stanley
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11 and 12 ofthe Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), alleging, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of approximately $17 billion of mortgage pass through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading infonnation concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. This case, which was consolidated with an earlier lawsuit and is currently styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litig, is pending in the SDNY. On September 15, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint which defendants have moved to dismiss.
Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 ofthe Securities Act, related to its role as a member ofthe syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained various material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued the securities and mortgage pass through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases relate to issuers that have fded for bankruptcy, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation. In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation is pending, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Washington Mutual, Inc. during 2006 and 2007. The Company underwrote approximately $1.6 billion of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On October 27, 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. The Company underwrote over $200 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. The Company and other defendants have moved to dismiss these claims. In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to the offerings of mortgage pass through certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. The Company underwrote over $2.4 billion ofthe principal amount of the offerings at issue. The Company and other defendants have moved to dismiss these claims.
Shareholder Derivative Matter. A shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the SDNY during November 2007 asserting claims related in large part to losses caused by certain subprime-related trading positions and related matters. The complaint in that lawsuit, which is styled Steve Staehr, Derivatively on Behalf of Morgan Stanley v. John J. Mack, et al, was served on the Company on February 15, 2008. On July 16, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which defendants have moved to dismiss. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution, and institution of certain corporate governance reforms.
Auction Rate Securities Matters.
On August 27, 2008, a shareholder derivative complaint, which was styled Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. Mack, et al, was filed in the SDNY. On September 12, 2008, a second complaint, which was styled Thomas v. Mack, et al, was filed in the SDNY. The complaints were substantially similar and named as defendants the members of the Company's Board of Directors as well as certain current and former officers. Morgan Stanley, on whose behalf the suits were purportedly brought, is named as a nominal defendant in each action. The complaints raised claims of breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
Morgan Stanley
amended, related to the Company's sale of auction rate securities ("ARS") over the period from June 20, 2007 to the present. Among other things, the complaints alleged that, over the relevant period, Morgan Stanley's public filings and statements were materially false and misleading in that they failed to disclose the illiquid nature of its ARS inventories and that Morgan Stanley's practices in the sale of ARS exposed it to significant liability for settlements and judgments. The complaints also alleged that during the relevant period certain defendants sold Morgan Stanley's stock while in possession of material non-public information. The complaints sought, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution from the defendants with respect to compensation, benefits and profits obtained, and the institution of certain reforms to Morgan Stanley's internal control functions. On November 24, 2008, the SDNY ordered the consolidation of the two actions. On February 2, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, styled as In re Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. Auction Rate Securities Derivative Litigation. On June 23, 2009, the SDNY granted defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure by plaintiffs to make a pre-litigation demand on the Company's Board of Directors. In addition, the SDNY set a schedule for plaintiffs to make such a demand, for the Board of Directors to respond thereto, and for further proceedings before the SDNY, which may include a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
Executive Compensation-Related Matter.
A shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on February 11, 2010 asserting claims for waste, breach ofthe duty of loyalty and unjust enrichment related to the Company's executive compensation for the fiscal years ended November 30, 2006 and 2007 and the calendar year ended December 31, 2009. The complaint, which is styled Security and Fire Professionals of America Retirement Fund, et al. v. John J. Mack, et. ai, names as defendants the Company's Board of Directors and certain present and former officers and directors. Morgan Stanley, on whose behalf the lawsuit is purportedly being brought, is named as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the total amount of the executive compensation paid for these years was disproportionately large in relation to the Company's performance. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of compensation, benefits and profits, and institution of certain corporate governance reforms.
China Matter.
As disclosed in February 2009, the Company uncovered actions initiated by an employee based in China in an overseas real estate subsidiary that appear to have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company terminated the employee, reported the activity to appropriate authorities and is cooperating with investigations by the United States Department of Justice and the SEC.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
There were no matters submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of the year ended December 31,2009.
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2010 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact tunic of Registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212)761-4000
(State or other jurisdiction of NewYork, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Title of each class which registered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Series A, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6 '/4% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6 'A% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Slock Exchange
5 yi% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty wilh respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Exchangeable Notes due June 30, 2011 NYSE Amcx LLC
Capital Protected Notes due March 30, 2011 (2 issuances); Capital Protected Notes duc June 30, 2011; Capital Protected
Notes due August 20, 2011; Capital Protected Notes due October 30,2011; Capital Protected Notes due December 30,
2011; Capital Protected Notes duc September 30, 2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
MPSSM duc March 30, 2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
Buffered PLUSSM due March 20, 2011 NYSE Area, Inc.
PROPELSSM due December 30, 2011 (3 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Protected Absolute Retum Barrier Notes due March 20, 2011 NYSE Area, Inc.
Strategic Total Retum Securities due July 30, 2011 NYSE Area, Inc.
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances), Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Targeted Income Strategic Total Return Securities duc July 30, 2011; Targeted Income Strategic Total Retum Securities duc
January 15, 2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
Targeted Income Strategic Total Retum Securities due October 30, 2011 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 ofthe Securities Act. YES [X] NO O Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES Q NO |x]
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES (x) NO O
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (ยง 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes [x] No fj
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K. is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K. or any amendment to this Form 10-K (x)
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [x] Accelerated Filer fj
Non-Accelerated Filer fj Smaller reporting company fj
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES fj NO [x]
As of June 30, 2010, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $32,227,567,107. This calculation docs not reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of January 31, 2011, there were 1,545,631,781 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2011 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
tn addition to the matters described below, 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 and7or 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, including, among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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 condensed 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.
In many proceedings, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount of any loss. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek substantial or indeterminate damages. Numerous issues may need to be resolved, including through potentially lengthy discovery and determination of important factual matters, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings in question, before a loss or additional loss or range of loss or additional loss can be reasonably estimated for any proceeding. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Recently, the level of litigation activity focused on residential mortgage and credit crisis related matters 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 regarding residential mortgages and related securities in the future and, while the Company has identified below certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from residential mortgage claims that have not yet been notified to the Company or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass through certificates. These matters include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's handling of foreclosure related issues, and the Company's compliance with the Service Members Civil Relief Act.
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other
Morgan Stanley
parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, which is styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's common stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its common stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On December 9, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action, which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming the Company and certain present and former senior executives as defendants and asserting claims for violations of the securities laws. The amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al, is currently pending in the SDNY. Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), alleging, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of approximately $17 billion of mortgage pass through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. This case, which was consolidated with an earlier lawsuit and is currently styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation, is pending in the SDNY. On August 17, 2010, the court dismissed the claims brought by the lead plaintiff, but gave a different plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. On September 10, 2010, that plaintiff, together with several new plaintiffs, filed a second amended complaint which purports to assert claims against the Company and others on behalf of a class of investors who purchased approximately $4.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates issued in 2006 by seven trusts collectively containing residential mortgage loans. The second amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act, and alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On October 11, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained various material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued the securities and mortgage pass through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-defendants and the
Morgan Stanley
I
willingness and ability of the issuers (or their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, relate to issuers (or their affiliates) that have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership.
In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On October 12, 2010, the court issued an order certifying a class of plaintiffs asserting claims under the Securities Act related to three offerings by Washington Mutual Inc. in 2006 and 2007 in which the Company participated as an underwriter. The Company underwrote approximately $1.3 billion of the securities covered by the class certified by the court.
In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. The Company underwrote approximately $232 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On June 5, 2010, the underwriter defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed by the lead plaintiffs.
In re IndyMac Mo it gage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to offerings of mortgage pass through certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. The Company underwrote over $1.4 billion of the principal amount of the offerings originally at issue. On June 21, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint. The Company underwrote approximately $46 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue following the court's June 21, 2010 decision. On May 17, 2010, certain putative plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene in the litigation in order to assert claims related to additional offerings. The Company underwrote approximately $1.2 billion of the principal amount of the additional offerings subject to the motion to intervene. The Company is opposing the motion to intervene.
On December 24, 2009, the Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands filed a purported class action against the Company on behalf of holders of approximately $250 million of AAA rated notes issued by the Libertas III CDO in March 2007. The case is styled Employees' Retirement System of the Government ofthe Virgin Islands v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud and unjust enrichment and alleges that the Company made misrepresentations regarding the AAA ratings of the CDO notes and the credit quality of the collateral held by the Libertas III CDO, and stood to gain if that collateral defaulted. The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief, fees and costs. On March 19, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Shareholder Derivative Matter. On November 15, 2007, a shareholder derivative complaint styled Steve Staehr, Derivatively on Behalf of Morgan Stanley v. John J. Mack, et al. was filed in the SDNY asserting claims related in large part to losses caused by certain subprime-related trading positions and related matters. On July 16, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which, defendants moved to dismiss on September 19, 2008. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution, and institution of certain corporate governance reforms.
Other Litigation. On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Cheyne Finance (the "Cheyne SIV"). The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime residential mortgage backed securities held by the SIV. On September 2, 2009, the court dismissed all of the claims against the Company except for plaintiffs' claims for common law fraud. On June 15, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 20, 2010, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to replead their aiding and abetting common law fraud claims against the Company, and those claims were added in an amended complaint filed on August 5, 2010. Since the filing ofthe initial complaint, various additional plaintiffs have been added to
Morgan Stanley
the case. There are currently 14 plaintiffs asserting individual claims related lo securities issued by the SIV. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
On January 16, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in an interpleader lawsuit styled U.S. Rank, N.A. v. Barclays Bank PLC and Morgan Stanley Capital Services Inc., which is pending in the SDNY. The lawsuit relates to credit default swaps between the Company and Tourmaline CDO I LTD ("Tourmaline"), in which Barclays Bank PLC ("Barclays") is the holder of the most senior and controlling class of notes. At issue is whether, pursuant to the terms of the swap agreements, the Company was required to post collateral to Tourmaline, or take any other action, after the Company's credit ratings were downgraded in 2008 by certain ratings agencies. The Company and Barclays have a dispute regarding whether the Company breached any obligations under the swap agreements and, if so, whether any such breaches were cured. The trustee for Tourmaline, interpleader plaintiff U.S. Bank, N.A., has refrained from making any further distribution of Tourmaline's funds pending the resolution of these issues and is seeking a judgment from the court resolving them. On January 11, 2011, the court conducted a bench trial, but has not yet issued its ruling. As of December 31, 2010, the Company believed that it was entitled to receivables from Tourmaline in an amount equal to approximately $273 million.
On September 25, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit styled Citibank, N.A. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International, PLC, which is pending in the SDNY. The lawsuit relates to a credit default swap referencing the Capmark VI CDO, which was structured by Citibank, N.A. ("Citi N.A."). At issue is whether, as part of the swap agreement, Citi N.A. was obligated to obtain the Company's prior written consent before it exercised its rights to liquidate Capmark upon the occurrence of certain contractually-defined credit events. Citi N.A. is seeking approximately $245 million in compensatory damages plus interest and costs. On October 8, 2010, the court issued an order denying Citi N.A.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Company's counterclaim for reformation and granting Citi N.A.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Company's counterclaim for estoppel. The Company moved for summary judgment on December 17, 2010. Citi N.A. opposed tlie Company's motion and cross moved for summary judgment on January 21, 2011.
On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 28, 2010. The complaint 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase ofsuch certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action.
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 were filed on June 10, 2010. The complaints 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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On July 12, 2010, defendants removed these actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on December 20, 2010, the cases were remanded to the state court.
On June 10, 2010, the Company was named as a new defendant in a pre-existing purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Rhinebridge pic ("Rhinebridge SIV"). The case is styled King County, Washington, et al. v. 1KB Deutsche Industriebank AG, et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint asserts
Morgan Stanley
claims for common law fraud and aiding and abetting common law fraud and alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime residential mortgage backed securities held by the SIV. On July 15, 2010, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint. That motion was denied on October 29, 2010. The case is pending before the same judge presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV, described above. While reserving their ability to act otherwise, plaintiffs have indicated that they do not currently plan to file a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
On July 9, 2010, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, styled Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of certain of plaintiffs clients and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale of a number of 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 plaintiffs clients by the Company was approximately $242 million. The complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On August 13, 2010, defendants removed this action to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and on September 13, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the state court. On December 28, 2010, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant the motion to remand. The defendants objected to the magistrate's report and recommendation on January 18, 2011.
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribas Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiffs subsidiaries 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's subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On September 8, 2010, defendants removed this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and on October 1, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the state court.
In July 15, 2010, China Industrial Development Bank ("CIDB") filed a complaint against the Company, which is styled China Industrial Development Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. 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 CIDB, and that the Company knew that the assets backing the CDO were of poor quality when it entered into the credit default swap with CIDB. The complaint seeks compensatory damages related to the approximately $228 million that CIDB alleges it has already lost under the credit default swap, rescission of CIDB's obligation to pay an additional $12 million, punitive damages, equitable relief, fees and costs. On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed two complaints against the Company and other defendants. One was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois and is styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. The other was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California and is styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. The complaints allege 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 the two actions was approximately $203 million and $75 million respectively. The complaint filed in Illinois raises claims
Morgan Stanley
under Illinois law. The complaint filed in California raises claims under the federal securities laws, Illinois law and California law. Both complaints seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. The defendants removed both actions to federal court, on November 23, 2010 and November 24, 2010, respectively. On January 18, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois remanded the Illinois action to the state court. On December 23, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the California action from the United States District Court for the Central District of California to the state court.
On December 6, 2010, MBIA Insurance Corporation ("MBIA") filed a complaint against the Company related to MBIA's contract to insure approximately $223 million of residential mortgage backed securities related to a second lien residential mortgage backed securitization sponsored by the Company in June 2007. The complaint is styled MBIA Insurance Corporation v. Morgan Stanley, et al. and is pending in New York Supreme Court, Westchester County. The complaint asserts claims for fraud, breach of contract and unjust enrichment and alleges, among other things, that the Company misled MBIA regarding the quality of the loans contained in the securitization, that loans contained in the securitization breached various representations and warranties and that the loans have been serviced inadequately. The complaint seeks, among other relief, compensatory and punitive damages, an order requiring the Company lo comply with the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents and/or to indemnify MBIA for losses resulting from the Company's alleged breach of the transaction documents, as well as costs, interests and fees. On February 2, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
China Matter.
As disclosed in February 2009, the Company uncovered actions initiated by an employee based in China in an overseas real estate subsidiary that appear to have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company terminated the employee, reported the activity to appropriate authorities and is cooperating with investigations by the United States Department of Justice and the SEC.
Item 4. [Removed and Reserved]
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Repoi t Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2011 Coinmission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212) 761-4000
(State or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Title of each class which registered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) ofthe Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Slock,
Series A, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6 Vt% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6 V*% Capita! Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
5 Yi% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Capital Protected Notes due September 30, 2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
MPSSM due March 30, 2012 NYSE Area, Inc.
Market Vectors ETNs duc March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) . NYSE Area. Inc.
Morgan Stanley Cushingยฎ MLP High Income Index ETNs due March 21, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Crude Oil Linked ETNs due July 1, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Indicale by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES (X) NO ?
Indicale by check mark if Registrant is nol required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Act. YES ? NO |X)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (I) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES [x] NO ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES |x] NO Q
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. fj
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [x] Accelerated Filer O
Non-Accelerated Filer fj Smaller reporting company ?
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whelher Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES ? NO (X]
As of June 30, 2011, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $44,205,856,161. This calculation does not reflect a determination thai persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of January 31, 2012, there were 1,978,634,958 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2012 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part IU of this Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 ofthe 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, including, among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
The Company contests liability and/or the amount of damages as appropriate in each pending matler. 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.
In many proceedings, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount of any loss. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek substantial or indeterminate damages. 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, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings in question, before a loss or additional loss or range of loss or additional loss can be reasonably estimated for any proceeding. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity focused on residential mortgage and credit crisis related matters 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 regarding residential mortgages and related securities in the future and, while the Company has identified below certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from residential mortgage claims that have not yet been notified to the Company or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS"), collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass through certificates. These matters include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's disclosures to investors, and the Company's handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401 (k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other
Morgan Stanley
parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, which is styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's common stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its common stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On December 9, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al., was filed in the SDNY asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants knew or should have known that from January 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008, the plans' investment in Company stock was imprudent given the extraordinary risks faced by the Company and its common stock during that period. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On July 20, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on October 28, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action, which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming the Company and certain present and former senior executives as defendants and asserting claims for violations of the securities laws. The amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al, is currently pending in the SDNY. Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 4, 2011, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint with respect to certain of their allegations. On June 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in response to the court's order of April 4, 2011. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), alleging, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of approximately $17 billion of mortgage pass through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. This case, which was consolidated with an earlier lawsuit and is currently styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation, is pending in the SDNY. On August 17, 2010, the court dismissed the claims brought by the lead plaintiff, but gave a different plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. On September 10, 2010, that plaintiff, together with several new plaintiffs, filed a second amended complaint which purported to assert claims against the Company and others on behalf of a class of investors who purchased approximately $4.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates issued in 2006 by seven trusts collectively containing residential mortgage loans. The second amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act, and alleged, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On September 15, 2011, the court granted in
Morgan Stanley
part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' request to file another amended complaint. On September 29, 2011, the defendants moved for reconsideration ofa portion ofthe court's decision partially denying the motion to dismiss. On September 30, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint purporting to bring claims on behalf of a class of investors who purchased approximately $2.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates issued in 2006 by five trusts. The defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on October 17, 2011.
Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings al issue contained material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued or sponsored the securities and mortgage pass through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, relate to issuers or sponsors (or their affiliates) that have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership.
In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. The Company underwrote approximately $232 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On September 23, 2011, a group of underwriter defendants, including the Company, reached an agreement in principle with the class plaintiffs to settle the litigation. On December 15, 2011, the Court presiding over this action issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. The settlement hearing is currently scheduled for April 12, 2012.
In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to offerings of mortgage pass through certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. The Company underwrote over $1.4 billion ofthe principal amount ofthe offerings originally at issue. On June 21, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint. The Company underwrote approximately $46 million ofthe principal amount of the offerings at issue following the court's June 21, 2010 decision. On May 17, 2010, certain putative plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene in the litigation in order to assert claims related to additional offerings. The principal amount of the additional offerings underwritten by the Company is approximately $1.2 billion. On June 21, 2011, the Company successfully opposed the motion to add the additional plaintiffs as to the Company. On July 20, 2011 and July 21, 2011, certain of the additional plaintiffs filed appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company is opposing the appeals.
Luther, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, involves claims related to the Company's role as an underwriter of various residential mortgage backed securities offerings issued by affiliates of Countrywide Financial Corporation. The amended complaint includes allegations that the registration statements and the offering documents contained false and misleading statements about the residential mortgage loans backing the securities. The Company underwrote approximately $6.3 billion of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On January 6, 2010, the Court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On May 18, 2011, a California court of appeals reversed the dismissal and reinstated the complaint. On December 19, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On February 3, 2012, defendants moved to stay the case pending resolution of a securities class action brought by the same plaintiffs, styled Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et ai, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Morgan Stanley
Other Litigation. On August 25. 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Cheyne Finance (the "Cheyne SIV"). The case is styled Ahu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. On September 2, 2009, the court dismissed all of the claims against the Company except for plaintiffs' claims for common law fraud. On June 15, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 20, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs leave to replead their aiding and abetting common law fraud claims against the Company, and those claims were added in an amended complaint filed on August 5, 2010. On December 27, 2011, the court permitted plaintiffs to reinstate their causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty against the Company. The Company moved to dismiss these claims on January 10, 2012. On January 5, 2012, the court permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint and assert a negligence claim against the Company. The amended complaint was filed on January 9, 2012 and the Company moved to dismiss the negligence claim on January 17, 2012. On January 23, 2012, the Company moved for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. There are 15 plaintiffs in this action asserting claims related to approximately $983 million of securities issued by the SIV.
On September 25, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit styled Citibank, N.A. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International, PLC, pending in the SDNY. The lawsuit relates to a credit default swap referencing the Capmark VI CDO, which was structured by Citibank, N.A. ("Citi N.A."). At issue is whether, as part of the swap agreement, Citi N.A. was obligated to obtain the Company's prior written consent before it exercised its rights to liquidate Capmark upon the occurrence of certain contractually-defined credit events. Citi N.A. is seeking approximately $245 million in compensatory damages plus interest and costs. On May 25, 2011, the court issued an order denying the Company's motion for summary judgment and granting Citi N.A.'s cross motion for summary judgment. On June 27, 2011, the court entered a final judgment against the Company for approximately $269 million plus post-judgment interest, and the Company filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which appeal is now pending.
On December 14, 2009, Central Mortgage Company ("CMC") filed a complaint against the Company, in a matter styled Central Mortgage Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleged that that Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC improperly refused to repurchase certain mortgage loans that CMC, as servicer, was required to repurchase from the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") and the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"). On November 4, 2011, CMC filed an amended complaint adding claims related to its purchase of servicing rights in connection with approximately $4.1 billion of residential loans deposited into RMBS trusts sponsored by the Company. The amended complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, quasi-contract, equitable and tort claims and seeks compensatory damages and equitable remedies, including rescission, injunctive relief, damages, restitution and disgorgement. On January 9, 2012, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
Morgan Stanley
On December 23, 2009, ihe Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 28, 2010. The complaint 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company's individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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 ai, and Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. et al., respectively. Amended complaints were filed on June 10, 2010. The complaints 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 April 18, 2011, defendants in these actions filed an omnibus demurrer and motion to strike the amended complaints. On July 29, 2011 and September 8, 2011, the court presiding over both actions sustained defendants' demurrers with respect to claims brought under the Securities Act, and overruled defendants' demurrers with respect to all other claims.
On June 10, 2010, the Company was named as a new defendant in a pre-existing purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Rhinebridge pic ("Rhinebridge SIV"). The case is styled King County, Washington, et al. v. 1KB Deutsche Induslriebank AG, et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud and aiding and abetting common law fraud and alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. On July 15, 2010, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint. That motion was denied on October 29, 2010. On December 27, 2011, the court permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint and assert causes of action for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty against the Company. The amended complaint was filed on January 10, 2012 and the Company moved to dismiss the negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty claims on January 31, 2012. The case is pending before the same judge presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV, described above. While reserving their ability to act otherwise, plaintiffs have indicated that they do not currently plan to file a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
On July 9, 2010, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, styled Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of certain clients of plaintiffs affiliates and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale of a number of 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 s affiliates' clients by the Company was approximately $242 million. The complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On February 11, 2011, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed a second complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts also styled Cambridge Place
Morgan Stanley
Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. et al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of clients of plaintiff's affiliates, and alleges that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in selling certain mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued or underwritten by the Company or sold to plaintiff's affiliates' clients by the Company was approximately $102 million. The complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On October 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in each action. On November 22, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaints.
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribus Securities Corp., ct al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiffs subsidiaries 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's subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among olher things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase ofsuch certificates. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On October 13, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims brought under the Securities Act. On January 27, 2012, the court, in a ruling from the bench, substantially overruled defendants' demurrers.
On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank ("CDIB") filed a complaint against the Company, which is styled China Development Industrial Bank v. Morgun Stanley & Co. Incorporated and is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. 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 September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 28, 2011, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 21, 2011, the Company appealed the order denying its motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 7, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision denying the Company's motion to dismiss.
On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed two complaints against the Company and other defendants. One was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois and is styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bunk of Americu Funding Corporution et ul. The other was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California and is styled Federul Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. The complaints allege 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 the two actions was approximately $203 million and $75 million respectively. The complaint filed in Illinois raises claims under Illinois law. The complaint filed in California raises claims under the federal securities laws, Illinois law and California law. Both complaints seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On March 24, 2011, the Court presiding over Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On May 27, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion is currently pending. On September 15, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicugo v. Bunk of Americu Securities LLC, et al. On December 1, 2011, defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which demurrer is currently pending.
Morgan Stanley
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 Howe Loan Bank of Boston v. Ally Financial, Inc. F/K/A GMAC LLC et al. The complaint 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 $550 million. The 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, and on June 22, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to state court.
On July 5, 2011, Allstate Insurance Company and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in New York State Supreme Court styled Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint 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 and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $104 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On September 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On October 14, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion is currently pending.
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. The complaint 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 lo plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $153 million. The complaint raises claims under the Ohio Securities Act, federal securities laws, and common law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs' purchases ofsuch certificates.
On September 2, 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, filed 17 complaints against numerous financial services companies, including the Company. A complaint against the Company and other defendants was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $ 11 billion. The complaint raises claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and seeks, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On September 26, 2011, defendants removed the action to the SDNY and on October 26, 2011, the FHFA moved to remand the action back to the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
On September 2, 2011, the FHFA, as conservator for Freddie Mac, also filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. General Electric Company et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $549 million. The complaint raises claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and seeks, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On October 6, 2011, defendants removed the action to the SDNY and on November 7, 2011, the FHFA moved to remand the action back to the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each is styled Federal Deposit
Morgan Stanley
Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raise claims under both federal securities law and the Texas Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiff's purchase ofsuch certificates.
On January 20, 2012, Sealink Funding Limited filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York styled Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") formerly sponsored by SachsenLB Europe. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the SPVs of certain mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold by the Company was approximately $556 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates.
On January 25, 2012, Dexia SA/NV and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York styled Dexia SA/NV et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint 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 total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $680 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates.
On January 25, 2012, Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York styled Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint 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 and/or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $486 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates.
Other Matters. On a case-by-case basis the Company has entered into agreements to toll the statute of limitations applicable to potential civil claims related to RMBS, CDOs and other mortgage-related products and services when the Company has concluded that it is in its interest to do so.
On October 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP (the "Law Firm"), which is purportedly representing a group of investment advisers and holders of mortgage pass through certificates issued by RMBS trusts that were sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The letter asserted that the Law Firm's clients collectively hold 25% or more of the voting rights in 17 RMBS trusts sponsored or underwritten by the Company and that these trusts have an aggregate outstanding balance exceeding $6 billion. The letter alleged generally that large numbers of mortgages in these trusts were sold or deposited into the trusts based on false and/or fraudulent representations and warranties by the mortgage originators, sellers and/or depositors. The letter also alleged generally that there is evidence suggesting that the Company has failed prudently to service mortgage loans in these trusts. On January 31, 2012, the Law Firm announced that its clients hold over 25% of the voting rights in 69 RMBS trusts securing over $25 billion of RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company, and that its clients had issued instructions to the trustees of these trusts to open investigations into
Morgan Stanley
allegedly ineligible mortgages held by these trusts. The Law Firm's press release also indicated that the Law Firm's clients anticipate that they may provide additional instructions to the trustees, as needed, to further the investigations.
Shareholder Derivative Matter.
On February 11, 2010, a shareholder derivative complaint styled Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America Retirement Fund, et al. v. John J. Mack et al. was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The complaint is puqjortedly for the benefit of the Company, and is brought against certain cunent and former directors and officers of the Company, to recover damages for alleged acts of corporate waste, breaches of the duty of loyalty, and unjust enrichment based on the amount of compensation awarded to an undefined group of employees for fiscal years 2006, 2007 and 2009. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of compensation, benefits and profits, and institution of certain corporate governance reforms. On December 9, 2010, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and on February 4, 2011, plaintiffs noticed an appeal of that dismissal, which appeal is pending.
China Matter.
As disclosed in February 2009, the Company uncovered actions initiated by an employee based in China in an overseas real estate subsidiary that appear to have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company terminated the employee, reported the activity to appropriate authorities and is cooperating with investigations by the United States Department of Justice and the SEC.
The following matters were terminated during the quarter ended December 31, 2011:
In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, which had been pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, involved claims under the Securities Act related to three offerings by Washington Mutual Inc. in 2006 and 2007. The Company was one of several underwriters who participated in the offerings. The Company underwrote approximately $1.3 billion of the securities covered by the class certified by the court. On November 4, 2011, a final settlement among the parties was approved by the court.
Employees' Retirement System ofthe Government of the Virgin Islands v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et ai, which had been pending in the SDNY, involved claims for common law fraud and unjust enrichment against the Company related to the Libertas III CDO. On November 3, 2011, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice.
MBIA Insurance Corporation v. Morgan Stanley, et al. which had been pending in New York Supreme Court, Westchester County, involved claims for fraud, breach of contract and unjust enrichment against the Company related to MBIA Insurance Corporation's ("MBIA's") contract to insure approximately $223 million of residential mortgage pass through certificates related a second lien securitization sponsored by the Company in June 2007. On December 13, 2011, the Company and MBIA entered into an agreement to settle this litigation and to resolve certain claims that the Company had against MBIA.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2012 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact tunic of Registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212) 761-4000
(State or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Title of each class which registered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) ofthe Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Slock,
Series A, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6 Vt% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust 111 (and Registrant's guaranty wilh respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6 'A% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
5 V4% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley Cushingยซ MLPHigh Income Index ETNs due March 21, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Crude Oil Linked ETNs due July 1,2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 ofthe Securities Act. Y'ES |x| NO Q
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Act. YES ? NO [x]
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES [x] NO ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES [x] NO ?
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part HI of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. (x)
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer (x] Accelerated Filer fj
Non-Accelerated Filer Q Smaller reporting company ?
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES ? NO |x]
As of June 29, 2012, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $28,757,715,880 This calculation does not reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of February 5, 2013. there were 1,961,257,664 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2013 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Fonn 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, and involving, among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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.
In many proceedings, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount of any loss. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek substantial or indeterminate damages. 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, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings in question, before a loss or additional loss or range of loss or additional loss can be reasonably estimated for any proceeding. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level ofthe Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity focused on residential mortgage and credit crisis related matters 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 regarding residential mortgages and related securities in the future and, while the Company has identified below certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from residential mortgage claims that have not yet been notified to the Company or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS"), collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass-through certificates. These matters include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's disclosures to investors, and the Company's handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.
Morgan Stanley
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401 (k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's common stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its common stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On March 26, 2012, defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the complaint.
On March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al, was filed in the SDNY asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants knew or should have known that from January 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008, the plans' investment in Company stock was imprudent given the extraordinary risks faced by the Company and its common stock during that period. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On July 20, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on October 28, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On February 12, 2008, a purported class action, styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al, was filed in the SDNY against the Company and certain present and former executives asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint related in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also included allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January 18, 2013. On February 14, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit").
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), which is now styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation and is pending in the SDNY. The third amended complaint, filed on September 30, 2011, alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On January 11, 2013, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration which sought to expand the offerings at issue in the litigation based on recent precedent from the Second Circuit. On January 31, 2013, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint, in which they purport to represent investors who purchased approximately $7.82 billion in mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2006 by 14 trusts.
Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass-through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification,
Morgan Stanley
unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued or sponsored the securities and mortgage pass-through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases, including In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, relate to issuers or sponsors (or their affiliates) that have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership.
In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. The Company underwrote approximately $232 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. A group of underwriter defendants, including the Company, settled the main litigation on December 2, 2012. The underwriter defendants, including the Company, continue to defend claims by investors who opted out of the settlement or who purchased securities not covered by the settlement.
In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to offerings of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. On June 21, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint. The Company underwrote approximately. $46 million of the principal amount of the offerings currently at issue. In July 2011, certain putative additional plaintiffs appealed the court's June 2011 order denying the motion to add them as additional plaintiffs as to the Company. The Company is opposing the appeals. On August 17, 2012, the court granted class certification. On October 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to expand the offerings at issue in the litigation, relying on recent precedent from the Second Circuit. Defendants have opposed the motion. If the motion is granted and the offerings are included in the class that is certified, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company at issue in the litigation will be approximately $1.68 billion.
Luther, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et ai, pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, was filed on November 14, 2007 and involves claims related to the Company's role as an underwriter of various residential mortgage backed securities offerings issued by affiliates of Countrywide Financial Corporation. The amended complaint includes allegations that the registration statements and the offering documents contained false and misleading statements about the residential mortgage loans backing the securities. The Company underwrote approximately $6.3 billion of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On December 19, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. In February 2012, defendants moved to stay the case pending resolution of a securities class action brought by the same plaintiffs, styled Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In June 2012, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The motion to remand the matter was denied in August 2012.
Other Litigation. On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Cheyne Finance PLC and Cheyne Finance LLC (together, the "Cheyne SIV"). The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. The plaintiffs currently assert allegations of aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation relating to approximately $852 million of securities issued by the Cheyne SIV. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in June 2010. The court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment on the aiding and abetting fraud claim in August 2012. The Company's motion for summary judgment on the negligent misrepresentation claim, filed on November 30, 2012, is pending. The court has set a trial date of May 6, 2013. There are currently 14 named plaintiffs in the action claiming damages of approximately $638 million, as well as punitive damages.
Morgan Stanley
On December 14, 2009, Central Mortgage Company ("CMC") filed a complaint against the Company, in a matter styled Central Mortgage Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleged that that Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC improperly refused to repurchase certain mortgage loans that CMC, as servicer, was required to repurchase from the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") and the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"). On November 4, 2011, CMC filed an amended complaint adding claims related to its purchase of servicing rights in connection with approximately S4.1 billion of residential loans deposited into RMBS trusts sponsored by the Company. The amended complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, quasi-contract, equitable and tort claims and seeks compensatory damages and equitable remedies, including rescission, injunctive relief, damages, restitution and disgorgement. On August 7, 2012, the court granted in part the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. The amended complaint, filed on September 28, 2010, 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company's individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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 were filed on June 10, 2010. The amended complaints 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 plaintiffs purchase ofsuch certificates. On July 29, 2011 and September 8, 2011, the court presiding over both actions sustained defendants' demurrers with respect to claims brought under the Securities Act, and overruled defendants' demurrers with respect to all other claims.
On June 10, 2010, the Company was named as a new defendant in a pre-existing action related to securities issued by a SIV called Rhinebridge PLC and Rhinebridge LLC (together, the "Rhinebridge SIV"). The case is styled King County, Washington, et al. v. 1KB Deutsche Industriebank AG, et al. and is pending in the SDNY before the same judge presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV, described above. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence on May 4, 2012. On September 7, 2012, the Company moved for summary judgment with respect to the remaining claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and aiding and abetting fraud. On January 3, 2013, the court granted the motion for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims and denied it with respect to the aiding and abetting fraud claim. The two named plaintiffs claim approximately $65 million in lost principal and interest, as well as punitive damages.
On July 9, 2010 and February 11, 2011, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed two separate complaints against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, both styled Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et
Morgan Stanley
I
al. The complaints assert claims on behalf of certain clients of plaintiff's affiliates and allege that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale of a number of 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's affiliates' clients by the Company in the two matters was approximately $344 million. The complaints raise claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act and seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On October 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in each action. On November 22, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaints. On March 12, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs standing to bring suit. Defendants sought interlocutory appeal from that decision on April 11, 2012. On April 26, 2012, defendants filed a second motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which the court denied, in substantial part, on October 2, 2012.
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Slate of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribas Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiffs subsidiaries of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The tolal amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff s subsidiary by the Company was approximately $ 180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On October 13, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims brought under the Securities Acl. On January 27, 2012, the court, in a ruling from the bench, substantially overruled defendants' demurrers. On March 5, 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a demurrer to certain causes of action in the second amended complaint, which the court overruled on July 24, 2012.
On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank ("CDIB") filed a complaint against the Company, which is styled China Development Industrial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County ("Supreme Court of NY, NY County"). 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 lo 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 September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 28, 2011, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 7, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision denying the Company's motion to dismiss.
On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed two complaints against the Company and other defendants. One was filed 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 other was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. The complaints allege 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 the two actions was approximately $203 million and $75 million respectively. The complaint filed in Illinois raises claims under Illinois law. The complaint filed in California raises claims under the federal securities laws, Illinois law and California law. Both complaints seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On March 24, 2011, the court presiding over Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On May 27, 2011,
Morgan Stanley
i
j
i
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was denied on September 19, 20 i 2. The Company filed its answer on December 21, 2012. On September 15, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. On December 1,
2011, defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on statute of limitations and statute of repose
grounds, which demurrer was overruled on June 28, 2012. On August 31, 2012, defendants filed demurrers on
the merits of the complaint.
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 $550 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.
On July 5, 2011, Allstate Insurance Company and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 9, 2011 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 and/ or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $104 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On October 14, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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. On May 21,
2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was denied on August 3,
2012. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in November 2013.
On September 2, 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, filed 17 complaints against numerous financial services companies, including the Company. A complaint against the Company and other defendants was filed in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass-through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $11 billion. The complaint raises claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and seeks, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On September 26, 2011, defendants removed the action to the SDNY and on October 26, 2011, the FHFA moved to remand the action back to the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. On May 11, 2012, plaintiff withdrew its motion to remand. On July 13, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which motion was denied in large part on November 19, 2012. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in January 2015.
Morgan Stanley
On September 2, 2011, the FHFA, as conservator for Freddie Mac, also filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. General Electric Company et al. The complaint alleged that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass-through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $549 million. The complaint raised claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and sought, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On October 6, 2011, defendants removed the action to the SDNY. On January 22, 2013, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to all defendants.
On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each was styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleged that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raised claims under both federal securities law and the Texas Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiff s purchase of such certificates. On March 20, 2012, the Company filed answers to the complaints in both cases. On June 13, 2012, the Company removed the cases to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On June 21, 2012, the Company moved to transfer the action to the SDNY. On November 27, 2012, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the action to Texas state court and denied the Company's motion to transfer the case to New York. On January 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions with respect to plaintiffs claims. On February 6, 2013, the FDIC filed an amended consolidated complaint.
On January 20, 2012, Sealink Funding Limited filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") formerly sponsored by SachsenLB Europe. An amended complaint was filed on May 21, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the SPVs of ceitain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold by the Company was approximately $507 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On September 7, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On January 25, 2012, Dexia SA/NV and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Dexia SA/NV et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 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 total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $626 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/ or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On August 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On January 25, 2012, Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Bayerische Landesbank. New York Branch v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 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 and/or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $411 million. The amended complaint raises common
Morgan Stanley
law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases ofsuch certificates. On July 27, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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 77ie 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 SI 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 January 23, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On April 25, 2012, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and certain affiliates filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on June 29, 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 total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company was approximately $758 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, rescission, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages, as well as punitive damages, associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On September 21, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On August 7, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4SL (together, the "Trust") against the Company. The matter is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $303 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreement underlying the transaction, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On October 8, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
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, NY County. 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. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreements underlying the transactions, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On October 9, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On August 10, 2012, the FDIC, as receiver for Colonial Bank, filed two complaints against the Company in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Alabama. The first action is styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as
Morgan Stanley
Receiver for Colonial Bank v. Citigroup Mortgage Ixxm Trust Inc. et al. and alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Colonial Bank of a mortgage pass-through certificate backed by a securitization trust containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of the certificate allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to Colonial Bank was approximately S65 million. On September 12, 2012, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, and on October 12, 2012, plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court. The second action is styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Colonial Bank v. Countrywide Securities Corporation et al. and alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Colonial Bank 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 to Colonial Bank was approximately $144 million. On September 10, 2012, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, and on September 21, 2012, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On October 11, 2012, plaintiff moved to remand the case back to state court, which motion was denied on December 7, 2012. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 22, 2013. The complaints each raise claims under federal securities law and the Alabama Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with Colonial Bank's purchase of such certificates.
On September 28, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX against the Company styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-I3ARX v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor in interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., pending in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. U.S. Bank filed an amended complaint on January 17, 2013, which asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $609 million, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory judgment relief, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest.
On October 5, 2012, a complaint was filed against the Company and others in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Phoenix Light SF Limited et al v. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs, or their assignors, of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs or their assignors by the Company was approximately $344 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation and rescission based on mutual mistake and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, punitive damages or alternatively rescission or rescissionary damages associated with the purchase of such certificates. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on December 14, 2012.
On May 1, 2012, Asset Management Fund d/b/a AMF Funds and certain of its affiliated funds filed a summons with notice against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Asset Management Fund d/b/a AMF Funds et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $122 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common-law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages and rescission. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on October 22, 2012. On December 3, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On November 16, 2012, 1KB International S.A. and an affiliate filed a summons with notice against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled 1KB International S.A. In
Morgan Stanley
I
I
! i
i i
i I
Liquidation v. Morgan Stanley et al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $147 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation as well as contract claims. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages, and rescission.
On November 21, 2012, Deutsche Zentral Genossenshaftsbank AG and an affiliate filed a summons with notice against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Deutsche Zentral Genossenshaftsbank AG, New York Branch, d/b/a DZ Bank AG New York Branch v. Morgan Stanley et al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $694 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation as well as contract claims. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages, and rescission.
On November 28, 2012, Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County styled Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of an unspecified amount of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs purchases of such certificates. On February 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On December 14, 2012, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Merrill Lynch et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $628 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting fraud, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages.
On January 10, 2013, U.S. 'Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-IOSL against the Company. The complaint is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL, 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, NY County. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $300 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order requiring the Company to comply with the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest.
On January 25, 2013, the FHFA filed a summons with notice on behalf of the Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI, against the Company. The matter is styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 007-NCI v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.25 billion,
Morgan Stanley
breached various representations and warranties. The notice seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest.
On January 30, 2013, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a summons with notice on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX against the Company. The matter is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX, by U.S. Bank National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor-by-nierger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $650 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest.
On August 24, 2012, HSH Nordbank AG and certain affiliates filed a summons with notice against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled HSH Nordbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiff was approximately $524 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages, punitive damages, and rescission. An amended summons with notice was filed on November 28, 2012.
On August 29, 2012, Bank Hapoalim B.M. filed a summons with notice against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $141 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary' damages, punitive damages, and rescission. An amended summons with notice was filed on December 4, 2012.
Other Matters. On a case-by-case basis the Company has entered into agreements to toll the statute of limitations applicable to potential civil claims related to RMBS, CDOs and other mortgage-related products and services when the Company has concluded that it is in its interest to do so.
On October 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP (the "Law Firm"), which is purportedly representing a group of investment advisers and holders of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by RMBS trusts that were sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The letter asserted that the Law Firm's clients collectively hold 25% or more of the voting rights in 17 RMBS trusts sponsored or underwritten by the Company and that these trusts have an aggregate outstanding balance exceeding $6 billion. The letter alleged generally that large numbers of mortgages in these trusts were sold or deposited into the trusts based on false and/or fraudulent representations and warranties by the mortgage originators, sellers and/or depositors. The letter also alleged generally that there is evidence suggesting that the Company has failed prudently to service mortgage loans in these trusts. On January 31, 2012, the Law Firm announced lhat its clients hold over 25% of the voting rights in 69 RMBS trusts securing over $25 billion of RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company, and that its clients had issued instructions to the trustees of these trusts to open investigations into allegedly ineligible mortgages held by these trusts. The Law Firm's press release also indicated that the Law Firm's clients anticipate that they may provide additional instructions to the trustees, as needed, to further the investigations. On September 19, 2012, the Company received two purported Notices of Non-Performance from the Law Firm purportedly on behalf of the holders of significant voting rights in various trusts securing over $28 billion of residential mortgage backed securities sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The Notice purports
Morgan Stanley
to identify certain covenants in Pooling and Servicing Agreements ("PSAs") that the holders allege that the Servicer and Master Servicer failed to perform, and alleges that each of these failures has materially affected the rights of certificate holders and constitutes an ongoing event of default under the relevant PSAs. On November 2, 2012, the Company responded to the letters, denying the allegations therein.
On April 2, 2012, the Company entered into a Consent Order (the "Order") with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the "Federal Reserve") relating to the servicing of residential mortgage loans. The tenns of the Order are substantially similar and, in many respects, identical to the orders entered into with the Federal Reserve by other large U.S. financial institutions. The Order, which is available on the Federal Reserve's website, sets forth various allegations of improper conduct in servicing by Saxon, requires that the Company and its affiliates cease and desist such conduct, and requires that the Company, and its Board of Directors and affiliates, take various affirmative steps. The Order requires (i) the Company to engage an independent third-party consultant to conduct a review of certain foreclosure actions or proceedings that occurred or were pending between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010; (ii) the adoption of policies and procedures related to management of third parties used to outsource residential mortgage servicing, loss mitigation or foreclosure; (iii) a "validation report" from an independent third-party consultant regarding compliance with the Order for the first year; and (iv) submission of quarterly progress reports as to compliance with the Order by the Company's the Board of Directors. The Order also provides that the Company will be responsible for the payment of any civil money penalties or compensatory payments assessed by the Federal Reserve related to such alleged conduct, which penalties or payments have not yet been determined. On January 15, 2013, the Company entered into a settlement with the Federal Reserve- which resulted in the early termination of the. foreclosure review process required by the Order and, in its place, the Company agreed to pay into a settlement fund and to pay additional funds for borrower relief efforts. The Federal Reserve has reserved the ability to impose civil monetary penalties on Saxon.
Commercial Mortgage Related Matter.
On January 25, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in The Bank of New York Mellon Trust, National Association v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc., a litigation pending in the SDNY. The suit, brought by the trustee of a series of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, alleges that the Company breached certain representations and warranties with respect to an $81 million commercial mortgage loan that was originated and transferred to the trust by the Company. The complaint seeks, among other things, to have the Company repurchase the loan and pay additional monetary damages. On June 27, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, but directed the filing of an amended complaint. On July 29, 2011, the Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint. On September 21, 2012, the Company and plaintiff filed motions for summary judgment.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2013 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in us charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212)761-4000
(State or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Title of each class which registered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, S0.01 par value New York Slock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing l/l,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Series A, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred
Stock, Scries E, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000lh interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rale Non-Cumulative Preferred
Stock, Series F, $0.01 par value New York Slock Exchange
6V4% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6V4% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
5V4% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty wiih respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs due April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley Cushingยฎ MLP High Income Index ETNs due March 21, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Crude Oil Linked ETNs due July 1, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 ofthe Securities Act. YES [x] NO O
Indicale by check mark tf Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Acl. YES fj NO [x|
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES (X| NO ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required lo submit and post such files). YES (x) NO fj
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. Q
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer |x) Accelerated Filer ?
Non-Accelerated Filer fj Smaller reporting company fj
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Acl Rule 12b-2). YES d NO (X]
As of June 28, 2013, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $45,831,657,254. This calculation does nol reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of January 31, 2014, there were 1,975,673,438 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2014 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, and involving, among other matters, sales and trading activities, financial products or offerings sponsored, underwritten or sold by the Company, and accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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.
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. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings or investigations will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings and investigations where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or government 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. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings and investigations will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings or investigations could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by government 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 certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain federal and state regulatory and governmental entities, including among others various members of the RMBS Working Group of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS"), collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass-
Morgan Stanley
i
through certificates. These matters include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's disclosures to investors, and the Company's handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.
On January 30, 2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the Staff ofthe Enforcement Division of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") to resolve an investigation related to certain subprime RMBS transactions sponsored and underwritten by the Company in 2007. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, the Company would be charged with violating Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, and the Company would pay disgorgement and penalties in an amount of $275 million and would neither admit nor deny the SEC's findings. The SEC has not yet presented the proposed settlement to the Commission and no assurance can be given that it will be accepted.
Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al, was filed in the SDNY asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants knew or should have known that from January 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008, the plans' investment in Company stock was imprudent given the extraordinary risks faced by the Company and its common stock during that period. On March 28, 2013, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss both actions. Plaintiffs filed notices of appeal on June 27, 2013 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") in both matters, which have been consolidated on appeal.
On February 12, 2008, a purported class action, styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al, was filed in the SDNY against the Company and certain present and former executives asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint related in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, and also included allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January 18, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Second Circuit, which appeal is pending.
On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), which is now styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation and is pending in the SDNY. The third amended complaint, filed on September 30, 2011, alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On January 31, 2013, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint, in which they purport to represent investors who purchased approximately $7.82 billion in mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2006 by 13 trusts. On August 30, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.
On May 14, 2009, the Company was named as one of several underwriter defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11,12 and 15 of the Securities Act which is now styled In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation and is pending in the SDNY. The claims against the Company relate to offerings of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by several trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during
Morgan Stanley
I
2006 and 2007. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The amount of the certificates underwritten by the Company at issue in the litigation was approximately $1.68 billion. On August 17, 2012, the court granted class certification with respect to one offering underwritten by the Company. On August 30, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the certified class to include additional offerings. IndyMac Bank, which was the sponsor of these securitizations, filed for bankruptcy on July 31, 2008, and the Company's ability to be indemnified by IndyMac Bank is limited.
On October 25, 2010, the Company, certain affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle ("SPV"), were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by the SPV in Singapore, commonly referred to as Pinnacle Notes. The case is styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. An amended complaint was filed on October 22, 2012. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 22, 2013 and granted class certification on October 17, 2013. On October 30, 2013, defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the court's decision granting class certification. On January 31, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors by structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited subsequently from the securities' failure. In addition, the second amended complaint alleges that the securities' offering materials contained material misstatements or omissions regarding the securities' underlying assets and the alleged conflicts of interest between the defendants and the investors. The second amended complaint asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs seek damages of approximately $138.7 million, rescission, punitive damages, and interest.
Other Litigation. On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. The amended complaint, filed on September 28, 2010, 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company's individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
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 were filed on June 10, 2010. The amended complaints 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 plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On August 11, 2011, plaintiffs 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.
Morgan Stanley
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribas Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiffs subsidiaries of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiffs subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase ofsuch certificates. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On October 13, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims brought under the Securities Acl. On January 27, 2012, the court, in a ruling from the bench, substantially overruled defendants' demurrers. On March 5, 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a demurrer to certain causes of action in the second amended complaint, which the court overruled on July 24, 2012. The Company filed its answer to the second amended complaint on August 3, 2012. An initial trial of certain of plaintiff s claims is scheduled to begin in July 2015.
On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank ("CDIB") filed a complaint against the Company, which is styled China Development Industrial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and is pending in the 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 March 10, 2011, the Company filed its answer to the complaint.
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 and asserts claims under Illinois law. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by the Company at issue in the action was approximately $203 million. The complaint seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On March 24, 2011, the court presiding over Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. 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.
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 plaintiffs 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.
On July 5, 2011, Allstate Insurance Company and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 9, 2011 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and
Morgan Stanley
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 and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $104 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases ofsuch certificates. On March 15, 2013, the court denied in substantial part the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which order the Company appealed on April 11, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the Company filed its answer to the amended complaint.
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.
On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each was styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleged that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raised claims under both federal securities law and the Texas Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On March 20, 2012, the Company filed answers to the complaints in both cases. On June 7, 2012, the two cases were consolidated. On January 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions with respect to plaintiffs claims. On February 6, 2013, the FDIC filed an amended consolidated complaint. On February 25, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions, which motion was denied in substantial part on April 26, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the FDIC filed a second amended consolidated complaint. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in November 2014.
On January 20, 2012, Sealink Funding Limited filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") formerly sponsored by SachsenLB Europe. An amended complaint was filed on May 21, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the SPVs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold by the Company was approximately $507 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On March 20, 2013, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On May 3, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On January 25, 2012, Dexia SA/NV and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Dexia SA/NV et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 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 total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs by the
Morgan Stanley
I
I
i
i
i
Company was approximately $626 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On October 16, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 18, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal and a motion to renew their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss.
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.
On August 7, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4SL (together, the "Trust") against the Company. The matter is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL, et al. v. 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 Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $303 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreement underlying the transaction, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On October 8, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
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. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreements underlying the transactions, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. 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.
On August 10, 2012, the FDIC, as receiver for Colonial Bank, filed a complaint against the Company in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Alabama styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Colonial Bank v. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. et al The complaint alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Colonial Bank of a mortgage pass-through certificate backed by a securitization trust containing residential loans. The complaint raises claims under federal
Morgan Stanley
securities law and the Alabama Securities Act and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages. The total amount of the certificate allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to Colonial Bank was approximately $65 million. On September 13, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 12, 2013.
On September 28, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX against the Company styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage. Capital Holdings LLC. as successor in interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., pending in the Supreme Court of NY. U.S. Bank filed an amended complaint on January 17, 2013, which asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $609 million, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory judgment relief, specific performance, and unspecified damages and interest. On March 18, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On October 22, 2012, Asset Management Fund d/b/a AMF Funds and certain of its affiliated funds filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Asset Management Fund d/b/a AMF Funds et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $122 million. The complaint asserts causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, monetary and punitive damages. On December 3, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 18, 2013, the court dismissed claims with respect to seven certificates purchased by the plaintiff. The remaining claims relate to certificates with an original balance of $10.6 million. On September 12, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal concerning the court's decision granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed a notice of cross-appeal on September 26, 2013.
On December 14, 2012, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Merrill Lynch et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans totaling approximately $628 million. On March 15, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 17, 2013, the court signed a joint proposed order and stipulation allowing plaintiffs to replead their complaint and defendants to withdraw their motion to dismiss without prejudice. On October 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a new complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Morgan Stanley et al. The new complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $597 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On February 3, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On January 10, 2013, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-IOSL against the Company. The complaint is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL, 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 trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $300 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order requiring the Company to comply with the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest. On March 11, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Morgan Stanley
On January 31, 2013, HSH Nordbank AG and certain affiliates filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, styled HSH Nordbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiff was approximately $524 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On April 12, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On February 14, 2013, Bank Hapoalim B.M. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $141 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On April 26, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On March 7, 2013, the Federal Housing Finance Agency filed a summons with notice on behalf of the trustee of the Saxon Asset Securities Trust, Series 2007-1, against the Company and an affiliate. The matter is styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee qf the Saxon Asset Securities Trust, Series 2007-1 v. Saxon Funding Management LLC and Morgan Stanley and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $593 million, breached various representations and warranties. The notice seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, indemnity, and interest.
On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs in Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization tmsts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $694 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On July 12,2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On May 17, 2013, plaintiff in 1KB International S.A. in Liquidation, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $132 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On July 26, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On July 2, 2013, the trustee, Deutsche Bank became the named plaintiff in Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee ofthe Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI (MSAC 2007-NCI) v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of NY under the caption Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I, Inc. On
Morgan Stanley
February 3, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.25 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, rescission and interest.
On July 8, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint in Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX, by U.S. Bank National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor-by-merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. The complaint, filed in the Supreme Court of NY, asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $650 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages and interest. On August 22, 2013, the Company a filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On August 5, 2013, Landesbank Baden-Wiirttemberg and two affiliates filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY styled Landesbank Baden-Wiirttemberg el al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $50 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission based upon mutual mistake, and seeks, among other things, rescission, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. On October 4, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On August 16, 2013, plaintiffs in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. 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 $567 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 California Corporate Securities Law of 1968, and violations of the Kansas Blue Sky Law and seeks, among other things, rescissionary and compensatory damages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 4, 2013. On December 27, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss in substantial part. The surviving claims relate to one certificate purchased by the plaintiff for approximately $17 million.
On August 26, 2013, a complaint was filed against tlie Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Phoenix Light SF Limited et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs, or their assignors, of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs or their assignors by the Company was approximately $344 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation and rescission based on mutual mistake and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, punitive damages or alternatively rescission or rescissionary damages associated with the purchase of such certificates. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on December 13, 2013.
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 SDNY. 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
Morgan Stanley
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 olher things, rescissionary 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.
On November 6, 2013, Deutsche Bank, in its capacity as trustee, became the named plaintiff in Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC3 (MSAC 2007-NC3) v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of NY under the caption Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, solely in its capacity as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC3 v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as Successor-by-Merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.3 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, rescission, interest and costs. On December 16, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On December 24, 2013, Commerzbank AG London Branch filed a summons with notice against the Company and others in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Commerzbank AG London Branch v. UBS AG et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain other entities. The notice alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs assignors 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $207 million. The notice identifies causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common-law fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, civil conspiracy, tortious interference and unjust enrichment. The notice identifies the relief sought to include, among other things, monetary damages of at least approximately $207 million and punitive damages.
On December 30, 2013, Wilmington Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-12, filed a complaint against the Company. The matter is styled Wilmington Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC et al. 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 trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $516 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, interest and costs.
On January 15, 2014, the FDIC, as receiver for United Western Bank filed a complaint against the Company and others in the District Court of the State of Colorado, styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for United Western Bank v. Banc of America Funding Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to United Western Bank of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold to United Western Bank by the Company was approximately $75 million. The complaint raises claims under both federal securities law and the Colorado Securities Act and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiffs purchase of such certificates.
Other Matters. On a casc-by-case basis the Company has entered into agreements to toll the statute of limitations applicable to potential civil claims related to RMBS, CDOs and other mortgage-related products and services when the Company has concluded that it is in its interest to do so.
Morgan Stanley
On October 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP (the "Law Finn"), which is purportedly representing a group of investment advisers and holders of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by RMBS trusts that were sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The letter asserted that the Law Firm's clients collectively hold 25% or more ofthe voting rights in 17 RMBS trusts sponsored or underwritten by the Company and that these trusts have an aggregate outstanding balance exceeding $6 billion. The letter alleged generally that large numbers of mortgages in these trusts were sold or deposited into the trusts based on false and/or fraudulent representations and warranties by the mortgage originators, sellers and/or depositors. The letter also alleged generally that there is evidence suggesting that the Company has failed prudently to service mortgage loans in these trusts. On January 31, 2012, the Law Firm announced that its clients hold over 25% of the voting rights in 69 RMBS trusts securing over $25 billion of RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company, and that its clients had issued instructions to the trustees of these trusts to open investigations into allegedly ineligible mortgages held by these trusts. The Law Firm's press release also indicated that the Law Finn's clients anticipate that they may provide additional instructions to the trustees, as needed, to further the investigations. On September 19, 2012, the Company received two purported Notices of Non-Performance from the Law Firm purportedly on behalf of the holders of significant voting rights in various trusts securing over $28 billion of residential mortgage backed securities sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The Notice purports to identify certain covenants in Pooling and Servicing Agreements ("PSAs") that the holders allege that the Servicer and Master Servicer failed to perform, and alleges that each of these failures has materially affected the rights of certificateholders and constitutes an ongoing event of default under the relevant PSAs. On November 2, 2012, the Company responded to the letters, denying the allegations therein.
Commercial Mortgage Related Matter.
On January 25, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in The Bank of New York Mellon Trust, National Association v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc., a litigation pending in the SDNY. The suit, brought by the trustee of a series of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, alleges that the Company breached certain representations and warranties with respect to an $81 million commercial mortgage loan that was originated and transferred to the trust by the Company. The complaint seeks, among other things, to have the Company repurchase the loan and pay additional monetary damages. On June 27, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, but directed the filing of an amended complaint. On July 29, 2011, the Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint. On June 20, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion for summary judgment, and denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. On October 30, 2013, the Company filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment.
Matters Related to the CDS Market.
On July 1, 2013, the European Commission ("EC") issued a Statement of Objections ("SO") addressed to twelve financial firms (including the Company), the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. ("ISDA") and Markit Group Limited ("Markit") and various affiliates alleging that, between 2006 and 2009, the recipients breached European Union competition law by taking and refusing to take certain actions in an effort to prevent the development of exchange traded credit default swap ("CDS") products. The SO indicates that the EC plans to impose remedial measures and fines on the recipients. The Company and the other recipients filed a response to the SO on January 21, 2014. The Company and others have also responded to an investigation by the Antitrust Division ofthe United States Department of Justice related to the CDS market.
Beginning in May 2013, twelve financial firms (including the Company), as well as ISDA and Markit, were named as defendants in multiple purported antitrust class actions now consolidated into a single proceeding in the SDNY styled In Re: Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated United States antitrust laws from 2008 to present in connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of exchange traded CDS products. The complaints seek, among other relief, certification ofa class of plaintiffs who purchased CDS from defendants in the United States, treble damages and injunctive relief.
Morgan Stanley
j
i
t
The following matters were terminated during or following the quarter ended December 31, 2013:
In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation, which had been pending in the SDNY, related to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. A group of underwriter defendants, including the Company, settled the main litigation on December 2, 2012. The remaining opt-out claims and appeals have now been resolved.
Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP v. Morgan Stanley, et ai, which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On November 15, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On December 3, 2013, the court dismissed the action.
Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Morgan Stanley, et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On December 6, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On January 2, 2014, the court dismissed the action.
Seagull Point, LLC, individually and on behalf of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007 HE-5 v. WMC Mortgage Corp., et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the loans in the trust breached various representations and warranties. On January 9, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of discontinuance, dismissing the action against all defendants.
Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al., which had been pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On December 6, 2013, plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of all of its claims against the Company. On January 27, 2014, the court dismissed the action.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al, which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiffs in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On January 23, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation.
Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al, which had been pending in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On February 11, 2014, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On February 20, 2014, the court dismissed the action.
Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. Morgan Stanley et al., which had been pending in the SDNY, involved allegations that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On February 7, 2014, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On February 20, 2014, the court dismissed the action.
On December 12, 2013, the Company entered into an agreement with American International Group, Inc. ("AIG") to resolve AIG's potential claims against the Company related to AIG's purchases of certain mortgage pass-through certificates sponsored or underwritten by the Company backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2014 Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 1585 Broadway 36-3145972 (212) 761-4000
(State or other jurisdiction of New York, NY 10036 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
incorporation or organization) (Address of principal executive offices, including area code)
including zip code)
Name of exchange on
Title of each class which registered
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Series A, S0.0I par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing I/I,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Prefencd
Stock, Series E, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred
Slock, Scries F, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing l/l,000th interest in a share of 6.625% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock,
Series G, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing 1/1,000th interest in a share of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred
Stock, Series I, $0.01 par value New York Stock Exchange
6 '/i% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust III (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6 Va% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust IV (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
5 Yt% Capital Securities of Morgan Stanley Capital Trust V (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VI (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.60% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
6.45% Capital Securities ofMorgan Stanley Capital Trust VIII (and Registrant's guaranty with respect thereto) New York Stock Exchange
Market Vectors ETNs due March 31, 2020 (2 issuances); Market Vectors ETNs duc April 30, 2020 (2 issuances) NYSE Area, Inc.
Morgan Stanley Gushingยฎ MLP High Income Index ETNs due March 21, 2031 NYSE Area, Inc.
Indicate by check mark if Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 ofthe Securities Act. YES [X] NO fj Indicate by check mark if Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES fj NO |X]
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES [X] NO ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES [x] NO O
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to . the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. Q
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule l2b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [x] Accelerated Filer ?
Non-Accelcraled Filer Q Smaller reporting company O
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES fj NO |X|
As of June 30, 2014, the aggregate market value of the common stock of Registrant held by non-affiliates of Registrant was approximately $60,823,096,775. This calculation does not reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any other purposes.
As of January 31, 2015, there were 1,976,612,907 shares of Registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant's definitive proxy statement for Us 2015 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described below, 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 lhat would otherwise be the primary defendants in such cases are bankrupt or in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, and involving, among other matters, sales and trading activities, financial products or offerings sponsored, underwritten or sold by the Company, and accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.
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.
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. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings or investigations will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings and investigations where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or government 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. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings and investigations will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings or investigations could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by government 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 certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or are not yet determined to be material.
Residential Mortgage and Credit Crisis Related Matters.
Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company has received subpoenas and requests for information from certain federal and state regulatory and governmental entities, including among others various members of the RMBS Working Group of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, such as the United States Department of Justice, Civil Division and several state Attorney General's Offices, concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related
Morgan Stanley
matters such as residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS"), collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), structured investment vehicles ("SIVs") and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass-through certificates. These matters, some of which are in advanced stages, include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company's due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company's communications with ratings agencies, the Company's disclosures to investors, and the Company's handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.
In May 2014, the California Attorney General's Office ("CAAG"), which is one of the members of the RMBS Working Group, indicated that it has made certain preliminary conclusions that the Company made knowing and material misrepresentations regarding RMBS and that it knowingly caused material misrepresentations to be made regarding the Cheyne SIV, which issued securities marketed to the California Public Employees Retirement System. The CAAG has further indicated that it believes the Company's conduct violated California law and that it may seek treble damages, penalties and injunctive relief. The Company does not agree with these conclusions and has presented defenses to them to the CAAG.
On September 16, 2014, the Virginia Attorney General's Office filed a civil lawsuit, styled Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. Integra REC LLC v. Barclays Capital Inc., et al, against the Company and several other defendants in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond related to RMBS. The lawsuit alleges that the Company and the other defendants knowingly made misrepresentations and omissions related to the loans backing RMBS purchased by the Virginia Retirement System ("VRS"). The complaint alleges VRS suffered total losses of approximately $384 million on these securities, but does not specify the amount of alleged losses attributable to RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The complaint asserts claims under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, as well as common law claims of actual and constructive fraud, and seeks, among other things, treble damages and civil penalties. On January 20, 2015, the defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint and a plea in bar seeking dismissal of the complaint.
In October 2014, the Illinois Attorney General's Office ("IL AG") sent a letter to the Company alleging that the Company knowingly made misrepresentations related to RMBS purchased by certain pension funds affiliated with the State of Illinois and demanding that the Company pay the IL AG approximately $88 million. The Company does not agree with these allegations and has presented defenses to them to the IL AG.
On January 13, 2015, the New York Attorney General's Office ("NYAG"), which is also a member of the RMBS Working Group, indicated that it intends to file a lawsuit related to approximately 30 subprime securitizations sponsored by the Company. NYAG indicated that the lawsuit would allege that the Company misrepresented or omitted material information related to the due diligence, underwriting and valuation of the loans in the securitizations and the properties securing them and indicated that its lawsuit would be brought under the Martin Act. The Company does not agree with NYAG's allegations and has presented defenses to them to NYAG.
On February 25, 2015, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the United States Department of Justice, Civil Division and the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California, Civil Division (collectively, the "Civil Division") to pay $2.6 billion to resolve certain claims that the Civil Division indicated it intended to bring against the Company. While the Company and the Civil Division have reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter, there can be no assurance that the Company and the Civil Division will agree on the final documentation of the settlement.
Class Actions
On February 12, 2008, a purported class action, styled Joel Siratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") against the Company and certain present and former executives asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint related in
Morgan Stanley
large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, and also included allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January 18, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit"). On January 12, 2015, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal ofthe action.
On October 25, 2010, the Company, certain affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle ("SPV"), were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by the SPV in Singapore, commonly referred to as Pinnacle Notes. The case is styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The court granted class certification on October, 17, 2013. The second amended complaint, filed on January 31, 2014, alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors by structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited subsequently from the securities' failure, that the securities' offering materials contained material misstatements or omissions regarding the securities' underlying assets and alleged conflicts of interest between the defendants and the investors, and asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs seek damages of approximately $138.7 million, rescission, punitive damages, and interest. On July 17, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation, which received preliminary court approval December 2, 2014. The final approval hearing is scheduled for July 2, 2015.
Other Litigation. On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. The amended complaint, filed on September 28, 2010, 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 sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company's individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 7, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's demand for a jury trial.
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 federal securities law claims were dismissed with prejudice. On February 9, 2012, defendants' demurrers with respect to all other claims were overruled. On December 20, 2013, plaintiffs negligent misrepresentation claims were dismissed with prejudice. On January 26, 2015, the plaintiff requested dismissal with prejudice of all remaining claims against the Company in the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al. action.
On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribas Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiffs subsidiaries of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts
Morgan Stanley
containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff's subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase ofsuch certificates. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On October 13, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims brought under the Securities Act. On January 27, 2012, the court substantially overruled defendants' demurrers. On March 5, 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a demurrer to certain causes of action in the second amended complaint, which the court overruled on July 24, 2012. On November 24, 2014, plaintiffs negligent misrepresentation claims were dismissed with prejudice. An initial trial of certain of plaintiff s claims is scheduled to begin in August 2015.
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.
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. A corrected amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2011. The corrected amended 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 and asserts claims under Illinois law. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by the Company at issue in the action was approximately $203 million. The complaint seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs purchase of such certificates. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the corrected amended complaint on May 27, 2011, which was denied on September 19, 2012. On December 13, 2013, the court entered an order dismissing all claims related to one of the securitizations at issue. After that dismissal, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $78 million.
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 29, 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 plaintiffs 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 II, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss tlie amended complaint, which were granted in part and denied in part on September 30, 2013. On November 25, 2013 and July 16, 2014, respectively, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims against the Company with respect to two of the securitizations at issue. After these voluntary dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $358 million.
Morgan Stanley
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 lhat 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. On May 21, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was denied on August 3, 2012. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on January 20, 2015. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in July 2015.
On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each was styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Franklin Bank, S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleged that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raised claims under both federal securities law and the Texas Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On June 7, 2012, the two cases were consolidated. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions, which was denied in substantial part on April 26, 2013. The FDIC filed a second amended consolidated complaint on May 3, 2013. The Company filed a motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal as to the court's order denying its motion for summary judgment and special exceptions, which was denied on August 1, 2013. On October 7, 2014, the court denied the Company's motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying its motion for summary judgment and special exceptions and granted its motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying leave to file an interlocutory appeal. On November 21, 2014, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied on February 10, 2015. The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied Morgan Stanley's petition for interlocutory appeal on November 25, 2014. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in July 2015.
On January 20, 2012, Sealink Funding Limited filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") formerly sponsored by SachsenLB Europe. A second amended complaint, filed on March 20, 2013, alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the SPVs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold by the Company was approximately $507 million. The second amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On May 3, 2013, the Company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on April 18, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion. On May 1, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of that decision.
On January 25, 2012, Dexia SA/NV and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Dexia SA/NV et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 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 total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $626 million. The amended complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages as well as punitive damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On
Morgan Stanley
October 16, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 18, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal. Plaintiffs also filed a motion to renew their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, which the court denied on June 23, 2014. On July 16, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that decision, which has been consolidated with the appeal of the motion to dismiss.
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. On October 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended 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 $1,073 billion. The amended complaint raises claims under the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law, as well as common law claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, 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 January 2, 2015, the court denied defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On August 7, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4SL (together, the "Trust") against the Company. The matter is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL, et al. v. 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 Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $303 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreement underlying the transaction, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On August 8, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.
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. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreements underlying the transactions, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. 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 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.
On August 10, 2012, the FDIC, as receiver for Colonial Bank, filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Alabama styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Colonial Bank v. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. et al. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 13, 2013. The complaint alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Colonial Bank of a mortgage pass-through certificate backed by a securitization trust containing residential loans. The complaint asserts claims under federal securities law and the Alabama Securities Act, and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages. The total amount of the certificate allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to Colonial Bank was approximately $65 million. On November 12, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was denied on April 10, 2014.
Morgan Stanley
i
i
i
On September 28, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX against the Company styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-I3ARX v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor in interest lo Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., pending in the Supreme Court of NY. U.S. Bank filed an amended complaint on January 17, 2013, which asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among olher things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $609 million, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory judgment relief, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On September 30, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the court's September 30, 2014 decision.
On December 14, 2012, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Merrill Lynch et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans totaling approximately $628 million. On October 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a new complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Morgan Stanley et al. The new complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $597 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On February 3, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On January 10, 2013, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-IOSL against the Company. The complaint is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-IOSL, 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 trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $300 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order requiring the Company to comply with the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest. On August 8, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint.
On January 31, 2013, HSH Nordbank AG and certain affiliates filed a complaint against the Company, ceitain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY, styled HSH Nordbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiff was approximately $524 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On April 12, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On February 14, 2013, Bank Hapoalim B.M. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $141 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things,
Morgan Stanley
compensatory and punitive damages. On April 22, 2014, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss in substantial part. On September 18, 2014, the Company filed a notice of appeal from the ruling denying defendants' motion to dismiss.
On March 7, 2013, the Federal Housing Finance Agency filed a summons with notice on behalf of the trustee of the Saxon Asset Securities Trust, Series 2007-1, against the Company and an affiliate. The matter is styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Saxon Asset Securities Trust, Series 2007-1 v. Saxon Funding Management LLC and Morgan Stanley and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $593 million, breached various representations and warranties. The notice seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, indemnity, and interest.
On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs in Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiff was approximately $694 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On June 10, 2014, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. On August 4, 2014, claims regarding two certificates were dismissed by stipulation. After these dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $644 million.
On May 17, 2013, plaintiff in 1KB International S.A. in Liquidation, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and 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 sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $132 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On October 30, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. All claims regarding four certificates were dismissed. After these dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $116 million. On December 1, 2014, the Company filed a notice of appeal from the Court's October 30, 2014 decision.
On July 2, 2013, the trustee, Deutsche Bank became the named plaintiff in Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee ofthe Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI (MSAC 2007-NCI) v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of NY under the caption Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NCI v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I. Inc. On February 3, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.25 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, rescission and interest. On March 12, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
July 8, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint in Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX, by U.S. Bank National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as
Morgan Stanley
I
I
successor-by-merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. The complaint, filed in the Supreme Court of NY, asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the Trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $650 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages and interest. On August 22, 2013, the Company a filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on November 24, 2014.
On August 5, 2013, Landesbank Baden-Wiirttemberg and two affiliates filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Landesbank Baden-Wiirttemberg et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in 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 to plaintiffs was approximately $50 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for, among other things, common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission based upon mutual mistake, and seeks, among other things, rescission, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. On October 4, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On August 16, 2013, the plaintiff in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts in the sale to the plaintiff 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 $567 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 California Corporate Securities Law of 1968, and violations of the Kansas Blue Sky Law and seeks, among other things, rescissionary and compensatory damages. On December 27, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in substantia! part. The surviving claims relate to one certificate purchased by the plaintiff for approximately $17 million. On November 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On December 15, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in part.
On August 26, 2013, a complaint was filed against the Company and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Phoenix Light SF Limited et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs, or their assignors, of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs or their assignors by the Company was approximately $344 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation and rescission based on mutual mistake and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, punitive damages or alternatively rescission or rescissionary damages associated with the purchase of such certificates. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on December 13, 2013. On June 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. By stipulation dated July 18, 2014, the parties agreed that the Company's previously filed motion to dismiss would be deemed to be directed at the amended complaint.
On September 23, 2013, the plaintiff in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the SDNY. 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, rescissionary and compensatory
Morgan Stanley
damages. 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. On April 28, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to strike certain of the defendants' affirmative defenses. On July 11, 2014, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration ofthe court's order on the motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for certification of interlocutory appeal and a stay of all proceedings, which the court denied on September 30, 2014. On November 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
On November 6, 2013, Deutsche Bank, in its capacity as trustee, became the named plaintiff in Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of the Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust. Series 2007-NC3 (MSAC 2007-NC3) v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of NY under the caption Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, solely in its capacity as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC3 v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as Successor-by-Merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.3 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, rescission, interest and costs. On December 16, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On December 24, 2013, Commerzbank AG London Branch filed a summons with notice against the Company and others in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Commerzbank AG London Branch v. UBS AG et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain other entities. The complaint, which was filed on May 20, 2014, alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs assignors 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 to plaintiffs' assignors was approximately $185 million. The complaint asserts causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, and aiding and abetting common law fraud and fraudulent concealment and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on December 5, 2014.
On December 30, 2013, Wilmington Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-12, filed a complaint against the Company. The matter is styled Wilmington Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC et al. 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 trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $516 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, interest and costs. On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On January 15, 2014, the FDIC, as receiver for United Western Bank filed a complaint against the Company and others in the District Court of the State of Colorado, styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for United Western Bank v. Banc of America Funding Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to United Western Bank of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold to United Western Bank by the Company was approximately $75 million. The complaint raises claims under both federal securities law and the Colorado Securities Act and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiff s purchase of such certificates. On February 14, 2014, the defendants filed a notice removing the litigation to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On March 14, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action. On April 30, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Morgan Stanley
On April 28, 2014, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee for Morgan Stanley Structured Trust I 2007-1, filed a complaint against the Company. The matter is styled Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $735 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages, interest and costs. On July 21, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On September 19, 2014, Financial Guaranty Insurance Company ("FGIC") filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County ("Supreme Court of New York") styled Financial Guaranty Insurance Company v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. et al. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the net interest margin securities ("NIMS") in the trust breached various representations and warranties. FGIC issued a financial guaranty policy with respect to certain notes that had an original balance of approximately $475 million. The complaint seeks, among olher relief, specific performance of the NIM breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, reimbursement of certain payments made pursuant to the transaction documents, attorneys' fees and interest. On November 24, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On September 19, 2014, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC4, filed a summons with notice against the Company in the Supreme Court of New York styled Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, solely in its capacity as Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, Series 2007-NC4 v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor-by-merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. The notice asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.05 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The trustee filed its complaint on January 23, 2015, alleging breaches of representations and warranties, the repurchase obligation, and the duty to notify, and seeking, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents; compensatory, consequential, rescissory, equitable and/or punitive damages; attorneys' fees, costs and other related expenses, and interest.
On September 23, 2014, FGIC filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of New York styled Financial Guaranty Insurance Company v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. et al. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust breached various representations and warranties and defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to induce FGIC to issue a financial guaranty policy on certain classes of certificates that had an original balance of approximately $876 million. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and interest. On November 24, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Other Matters. On a case-by-case basis the Company has entered into agreements to toll the statute of limitations applicable to potential civil claims related to RMBS, CDOs and other mortgage-related products and services when the Company has concluded that it is in its interest to do so.
On October 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP (the "Law Firm"), which is purportedly representing a group of investment advisers and holders of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by RMBS trusts that were sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The letter asserted that the Law Firm's clients collectively hold 25% or more of the voting rights in 17 RMBS trusts sponsored or underwritten by the Company and that these trusts have an aggregate outstanding balance exceeding $6 billion. The letter alleged generally that large numbers of mortgages in these trusts were sold or deposited into the trusts based on false and/or fraudulent representations and warranties by the mortgage originators, sellers and/or depositors. The letter also alleged generally that there is evidence suggesting that the Company has failed prudently to service
Morgan Stanley
I I
I I i
i
mortgage loans in these trusts. On January 31, 2012, the Law Firm announced that its clients hold over 25% of the voting rights in 69 RMBS trusts securing over $25 billion of RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company, and that its clients had issued instructions to the trustees of these trusts to open investigations into allegedly ineligible mortgages held by these trusts. The Law Finn's press release also indicated that the Law Firm's clients anticipate that they may provide additional instructions to the trustees, as needed, to further the investigations. On September 19, 2012, the Company received two purported Notices of Non-Performance from the Law Firm purportedly on behalf of the holders of significant voting rights in various trusts securing over $28 billion of residential mortgage backed securities sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The Notice purports to identify certain covenants in Pooling and Servicing Agreements ("PSAs") that the holders allege that the Servicer and Master Servicer failed to perform, and alleges that each of these failures has materially affected the rights of certificateholders and constitutes an ongoing event of default under the relevant PSAs. On November 2, 2012, the Company responded to the letters, denying the allegations therein.
Commercial Mortgage Related Matter.
On January 25, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in The Bank of New York Mellon Trust, National Association v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc., a litigation pending in the SDNY. The suit, brought by the trustee of a series of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, alleges that the Company breached certain representations and warranties with respect to an $81 million commercial mortgage loan that was originated and transferred to the trust by the Company. The complaint seeks, among other things, to have the Company repurchase the loan and pay additional monetary damages. On June 16, 2014, the court granted the Company's supplemental motion for summary judgment. On June 17, 2014, the court entered judgment in the Company's favor. On July 16, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
Matters Related to the CDS Market.
On July 1, 2013, the European Commission ("EC") issued a Statement of Objections ("SO") addressed to twelve financial firms (including the Company), the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. ("ISDA") and Markit Group Limited ("Markit") and various affiliates alleging that, between 2006 and 2009, the recipients breached European Union competition law by taking and refusing to take certain actions in an effort to prevent the development of exchange traded credit default swap ("CDS") products. The SO indicates that the EC plans to impose remedial measures and fines on the recipients. The Company and the other recipients of the SO filed a response to the SO on January 21, 2014, and attended oral hearings before the EC during the period May 12-19, 2014. The Company's oral hearing took place on May 15, 2014. The Company filed a supplemental response to the SO on July 11, 2014. The Company and others have also responded to an investigation by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice related to the CDS market.
Beginning in May 2013, twelve financial firms (including the Company), as well as ISDA and Markit, were named as defendants in multiple purported antitrust class actions now consolidated into a single proceeding in the SDNY styled In Re: Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated United States antitrust laws from 2008 to present in connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of exchange traded CDS products. The complaints seek, among other relief, certification of a class of plaintiffs who purchased CDS from defendants in the United States, treble damages and injunctive relief. On September 4, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
The following matters were terminated during or following the quarter ended December 31, 2014:
In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation and Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al were purported class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401 (k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") relating to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses. Both cases were dismissed by the SDNY and their dismissal affirmed by the Second Circuit. On December 3, 2014, the time for plaintiffs to pursue a further appeal expired.
Morgan Stanley
i
I
I
I
i
In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation, which had been pending in the SDNY, was a putative class action involving allegations that, among other things, the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. On December 18, 2014, the parties' agreement to settle the litigation received final court approval, and on December 19, 2014, the court entered an order dismissing the action.
In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, which had been pending in the SDNY, was a class action involving allegations that, among other things, the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. On February 3, 2015, the court issued its final approval of the parties' agreement to settle the litigation and on February 23, 2015, the court entered a final judgment dismissing the action.
Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations 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. On January 16, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
Morgan Stanley
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washingron, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
IU QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015
OR
? TRANSITION REPOR T PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Commission File Number 1-11758
Morgan Stanley
(Exact Name of Registrant as specified in its charier)
Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
1585 Broadway New York, NY 10036
(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)
36-3145972 (212)761-4000
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) (Registrant's telephone number,
including area code)
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (I) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ยง No ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (ยง 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes [x] No ?
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer (x] Accelerated Filer O
Non-Accelerated Filer Q Smaller reporting company ?
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ? Nog]
As of April 30, 2015, there were 1,970,026,803 shares of the Registrant's Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, outstanding.
I
I
|1010|I
i
Part FlโOther Information.
Item 1. Legal Proceedings.
In addition to the matters described in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the "Fonn 10-K") and those described below, 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 in financial distress.
The Company is also involved, from time to time, in olher reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, and involving, among other matters, sales and trading activities, financial products or offerings sponsored, underwritten or sold by the Company, and accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or olher relief.
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 condensed 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.
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. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings or investigations will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings and investigations where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or government 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. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings and investigations will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings or investigations could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company's revenues or income for such period.
Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by government 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 certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or are not yet determined to be material.
Morgan Stanley
I
i
i
I
I|1010|The following developments have occurred with respect to certain matters previously reported in the Form 10-K or concern new actions that have been filed since December 31, 2014:
On February 23, 2015, the plaintiff in Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. perfected its appeal of the court's April 18, 2014 decision granting the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On February 25, 2015, the court in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et al., pending in the United Stales District Court for the District of Kansas, granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in part. On March 23, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the December 27, 2013 order granting defendants' motion to dismiss in substantial part.
On March 24, 2015, the court in Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for United Western Bank v. Banc of America Funding Corp., et al, denied defendants' motion to dismiss in substantial part.
On April 3, 2015, the court in Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.
On April 23, 2015, the court in Phoenix Light SF Limited et al v. Morgan Stanley et al. granted the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Morgan Stanley
AFFIDAVIT
DEBT OBLIGATION AND BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS
Name of Reporting Finn: Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC d/b/a/ Morgan Stanley & Company LLC
Description of Matter: General Obligation Refinancing Bonds. Series 2015
Role of Reporting Firm: Senior Managing Underwriter ._
This affidavit is submitted in conjunction with (check one):
_X_ a City of Chicago debt obligation transaction (Municipal Code Section 2-154-017)
brokerage services for the City Treasurer (Municipal Code Section 2-154-018)
Fill out below (and attach additional sheets using the same format, if necessary), the following information for each person in the Reporting Firm who will directly provide professional services to the City in connection with the Matter described above: the individual's position in the Reporting Firm and the role he or she will fill in the Matter, gender, and race or ethnicity. Individuals' names need not be disclosed.
Individual # Position and Role Gender Race/Ethnicity |109|Managing Director - Banking (m) f White |109|Vice President - Management M@ African American |109|Executive Director - Banking (m) f African American |109|Executive Director - Banking (m) f White |109|Associate - Banking m@ White
(If needed, please use additional sheets to identify additional personnel.)
By signing below, I represent under penalty of perjury that: (1) I am authorized to act on behalf of the Reporting Firm, and (2) the information in this Affidavit and associated attachment are true, complete, and correct.
By signing below, I understand and acknowledge, on behalf of the Reporting Firm, that failure to accurately and completely supply the information requested herein may result in a declaration of ineligibility to participate in future Matters for the City of Chicago.
Printed Name: William Daley
Signature: _
Title: Managing Director
Date:
Individual # Position and Role Gender Race/Ethnicity |109|Executive Director - Banking ยฉ F White |109|Vice President - Banking 0F African American |109|Analyst - Banking ยฉ F African American |10 9|Executive Director - Sales and Trading ยฉ f White
10 Analyst - Sales and Trading mยฉ African American
11 Managing Director - Underwriting ยฉF White
12 Executive Director - Underwriting ยฉF White
13 Vice President - Underwriting ยฉ F Asian
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION .I -- GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legai name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: William Blair & Company, L.L.C.
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[x] the Applicant
OR
[ ] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest:
OR
3. [ ] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
Business address of the Disclosing Party: 222 West Adams Street
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: 312-364-8120 Fax: 312-236-0174 Email: tlanctot@williamblair.com
Name of contact person: Thomas E. Lanctot
Federal Employer Identification No. (ifyou have one): j
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this ED S ? Department of Finance
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification if and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
1. Indicate the nature of the Disclosing Party:
] Person [x] Limited liability company
] Publicly registered business corporation [ ] Limited liability partnership
] Privately held business corporation [ ] Joint venture
] Sole proprietorship [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
] General partnership (Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
] Limited partnership [ ] Yes [ ] No
] Trust [ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: State of Delaware
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[x] Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors ofthe entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
John Ettelson President and Chief Executive Officer
David Coolidge Vice Chairman
Jon Zindel Chief Financial Officer
Arthur Simon General Counsel
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest of a beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
WBC Holdings, L.P. 222 West Adams Street WBC Holdings has 100% ownership
Chicago, Illinois 60606 interest in William Blair & Company, L.L.C.
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [x] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) ofsuch City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Mayer Brown LLP
71 S. Wacker Dr.
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney,
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.)
Underwriter's Counsel
paid or estimated.) NOTE:
"hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
$75,000 estimated
Chicago, IL 60606
(Add sheets if necessary)
[ ] Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [x] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee ofthe City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Party and, if the Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any ofthe offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
โข any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity of a Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee ofthe City, the State of Illinois, or any agency ofthe federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ofthe U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any ofthe above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
Page 6 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
John Brennan is a partner at William Blair & Company and is a Life Trustee for the Chicago Public
Library Foundation; Brent Gledhill is a partner at William Blair & Company and is a Board Member for
the Chicago Public Education Fund
To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient. Based on a reasonable review conducted by the firm, neither its partners or employees have provided gifts
to personnel of the City of Chicago.
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[x] is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate ofa predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes [x] No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.l., provide the names and business addresses ofthe City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply wilh these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
X 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: Ifthe Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. Ifthe Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or ifthe letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy of the statements and infonnation set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthe Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director ofthe Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the infonnation provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F. 1. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent of the City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F.l., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
William Blair & Company, L.L.C.
(Print or type name/of.Disclosing Party)
John R. Ettelson
(Print or type name of person signing)
President and Chief Executive Officer (Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date)
at Cook County, Illinois
June 8,2015
(state).
Notary Public.
m m
OFFICIAL SEAL JOAN T SAVAGE Notary Public - State ot Illinois My Commission Expires May 12,2018 m>"www
Page 12 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Parly or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as of tlie date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B.l.a., ifthe Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners ofthe Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers ofthe Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Parly or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ]Yes [^No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [x]No
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [x ] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of the person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address ofthe building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDDC B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
BOB
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
Legal name ofthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable:
WBC Holdings, L.P.
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
[x] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest: William Blair & Company, L.L.C.
OR
3. [] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
Business address of the Disclosing Party: 222 West Adams Street
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: 312-364-8120 Fax: 312-236-0174 Email: tlanetot@williamblair.com
Name of contact person: Thomas E. Lanetot
Federal Employer Identification No. (ifyou have one):
F. Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to
which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance
Ifthe Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
f
I
SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
1. Indicate the nature of the Disclosing Party:
[ ] Person [ ] Limited liability company
[ ] Publicly registered business corporation [ ] Limited liability partnership
[ ] Privately held business corporation [ ] Joint venture
[ ] Sole proprietorship [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
[ ] General partnership (Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501 (c)(3))?
[x] Limited partnership [ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Trust [ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: State of Delaware
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do bus iness in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ ] Yes fx] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors ofthe entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
WBCGP, L.L.C. General Partner of WBC Holdings, L.P.
John Ettelson President and Chief Executive Officer
David Coolidge Vice Chairman
Jon Zindel Chief Financial Officer
Arthur Simon General Counsel
Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 ofthe Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
NONE
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [xj No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) ofsuch City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV -- DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount ofthe fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
I
I
I
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
[xj Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [ ] No fx] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1 -23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee ofthe City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Party and, if the Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization ofa responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency ofthe federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ofthe U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security ofthe U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
Page 6 of 13
I I
I
I
I
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees ofthe Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
John Brcnnan is a partner at William Blair & Company and is a Life Trustee for the Chicago Public Library
Foundation; Brent Gledhill is a partner at William Blair & Company and is a Board Member for the Chicago
Public Education Fund.
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a
complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the
12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed
official, ofthe City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything
made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the
course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate
with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient.
Based on a reasonable review conducted by the firm, neither it nor its principals or employees have provided
gifts to personnel of the City of Chicago.
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[x] is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code.
Ifthe Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee ofthe City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes [x] No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit ofthe City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature of such interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. Ifthe Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
I
I
I
i
I
I
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
X 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI ~ CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: Ifthe Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. Ifthe Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or ifthe letters "NA" or ifthe word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration ofthe Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthe Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director ofthe Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all ofthe information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The infonnation provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F.l. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F.l., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
WBC Holdings, L.P.
(Print or type namejof Disclosing Party)
By: JAlftd
(Sign/here)
John R. Ruelson
(Print or type name of person signing)
President and Chief Executive Officer (Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date) June 8, 2015
at Cook County, Illinois (state).
n
Coinmission expires: May 12, 2018
OFFICIAL SEAL JOAN T SAVAGE Notary Public-state of Illinois My Commission Expires May 12 2018
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, tlie Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any ofthe following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B.l.a., ifthe Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[]Yes [)JNo
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title ofsuch person, (2) the name of the legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ JYes [x]No
Ifthe Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [x ] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name ofthe person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address of the building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: WBC GP, L.L.C.
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Parly submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
[] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest:
OR
3. [x] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control: WBC Holdings, L.P.
Business address of the Disclosing Party: 222 West Adams Street
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: 312-364-8120 fax: 312-236-0174 Email: tlanctot@wiiiiamblair.com
Name of contact person: Thomas E. Lanctot
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
I
I
!
i
i
i
i t
!
SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY 1. Indicate the nature of the Disclosing Party:
Person [x] Limited liability company
Publicly registered business corporation [ ] Limited liability partnership
Privately held business corporation [ ] Joint venture
Sole proprietorship [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
General partnership (Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
Limited partnership [ ] Yes [ ] No
Trust [ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: State of Delaware
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ ] Yes [x] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
John Ettelson President and Chief Executive Officer
David Coolidge Vice Chairman
Jon Zindel Chief Financial Officer
Arthur Simon General Counsel
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest of a member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest of a beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
NONE
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [xj No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV -- DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount ofthe fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
[x] Check here if the Disclosing Parly has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V -- CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [x] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[JYes [JNo
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee ofthe City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Parly and, ifthe Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization ofa business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
โข any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity of a Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or ofthe United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ofthe U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security ofthe U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
Page 6 of 13
I
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees ofthe Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
John Brennan is a partner at William Blair & Company and is a Life Trustee for the Chicago Public Library
Foundation; Brent Gledhill is a partner at William Blair & Company and is a Board Member for the Chicago
Public Education Fund
To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient.
Based on reasonable review conducted by the firm, neither it nor its principals or employees have provided
gifts to personnel ofthe City of Chicago.
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[xj is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
Ifthe Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate ofa predatory lender may result in the loss ofthe privilege of doing business with the City."
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes [x] No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit ofthe City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., provide the names and business addresses ofthe City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. Ifthe Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
I
I
I i
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
X 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI -- CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations ofthe City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy of the statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
If the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing al the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
U Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics . and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
Ifthe City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all ofthe information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet^ in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. Ifthe Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 ofthe Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F.l. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicanl, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any ofthe items in F.l., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
WBC GP, L.L.C.
(Print or type name ef Disclosing Party)
(SignHe^e)
John R. Ettelson
(Print or type name of person signing)
President and Chief Executive Officer (Print or type title of person signing)
at Cook
Signed and sworn to before me on (date) June 8, 2015
County, Illinois
(state).
Notary Public.
Commission expires: May 12, 2018
m> m m + m m mi
OFFICIAL SEAL JOANT SAVAGE Notary Public - State ol Illinois My Commission Expires May 12, 2018
Page 12 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any ofthe following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B.l.a., ifthe Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners ofthe Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Part)' is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [}JNo
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title ofsuch person, (2) the name of the legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [x]No
Ifthe Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [x ] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of the person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address ofthe building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
i
i
t
AFFIDAVIT
DEBT OBLIGATION AND BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS
Name of Reporting Firm: William Blair & Company, L.L.C.
Description of Matter: General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
Role of Reporting Firm: Co-Senior Manager
This affidavit is submitted in conjunction with (check one):
X a City of Chicago debt obligation transaction (Municipal Code Section 2-154-017)
brokerage services for the City Treasurer (Municipal Code Section 2-154-0.18)
Fill out below (and attach additional sheets using the same format, if necessary), the following information for each person in the Reporting Firm who will directly provide professional services to the City in connection with the Matter described above: the individual's position in the Reporting Firm and the role he or she will fill in the Matter, gender, and race or ethnicity. Individuals' names need not be disclosed.
Individual # Position and Role Gender Race/Ethnicity |109|Managing Director, Primary Contact tt F Asian |109|Director; Primary Contact M F White |109|Managing Director; Structuring M F White |109|Analyst; Execution and Structuring M F African American |109|Admin. Mgr; Execution and Support M R African American
(If needed, please use additional sheets to identify additional personnel.)
By signing below, I represent under penalty of perjury that: (1) I am authorized to act on behalf of the Reporting Firm, and (2) the information in this Affidavit and associated attachment are true, complete, and correct.
By signing below, I understand and acknowledge, on behalf of the Reporting Firm, that failure to accurately and completely supply the information requested herein may result in a declaration of ineligibility to participate in future Matters for the City of Chicago.
Printed Namej^Thomas E. Lanctot Signature:
Title: Partner and Head of Debt Capital Markets
Date: June 8.2015
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I -- GENERAL INFORMATION
Legal name ofthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: Siebert Brandford Shank & Co., L.L.C.
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[xl the Applicant
OR
[] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest:
OR
3. [] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
Business address of the Disclosing Party: 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2605
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: 312-759-0400 Fax. 312-759-0109 Email. kwalker@sbsco.com
Name of contact person: Karen Walker
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
F. Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
G. Which City agency_or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
|1010|
I
I
I I
I
i
SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
[ ] Person
[ ] Publicly registered business corporation
[ ] Privately held business corporation
[ ] Sole proprietorship
[ ] General partnership
[ ] Limited partnership
[ ] Trust
Limited liability company [ ] Limited liability partnership [ ] Joint venture [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
(Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: Delaware
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
M Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal litleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
Suzanne Shank President
Napoleon Brandford. Ill ; Chairman
Muriel Siebert & Co., Inc. PartriRr
- ' (Ser^tttJdrcd) - โ - -
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Disclosing Party. Examples ofsuch an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity, ff none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-0.30 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicanl which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
Suzanne Shank 535 Griswold St., Suite 225 Detroit, Ml 48226 25.5%
Napoleon BrandfordT"MT 1999 Harrison St., Oakland, CA 94612 25.5%
Muriel Siebert & Co. Inc.* 885 Third Ave. New York, NY 10222 49%
SECTION III -- BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[]Yes WNo
If yes, please identify below the name(s) ofsuch City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
N/A
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
*Muriel Siebert & Co., Inc, is wholly owned by Siebert Financial Corp., a publicly traded company of which the Estate of Muriel Siebert owns 90% of the stock. The remainder is publicly traded.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Parly Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b:d." is
not an acceptable response.
Mayor Brown 71 South Wacker Drive Underwriters Counsel Est $75,000.00
Chicago, IL 60606
(Add sheets if necessary)
[ ] Check here ifthe Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes y No [ ] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[]Yes []No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), ifthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant.and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted,:or conspiracy to commit bribery. theftf fraud,J]nrgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
2. Tlie Disclosing Party and, if tlie Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of ihose persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any ofthe offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
3. The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization ofa business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before tlie dale this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during the five years before the dale ofsuch Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting lo bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or ofthe United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ofthe U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security ofthe U.SDepartment of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
N/A ^_
Page 6 of 13
I
i
I
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
N/A
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name ofthe City recipient.
N/A
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[)J is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
N/A
Page 7 of 13
Ifthc letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes M No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit ofthe City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[]Yes []No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.L, provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired"by any CIfy~oTficial or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. Ifthe Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
I
I
i
I
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into wilh the Cily in connection with the Matter voidable by the Cily.
X 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: Ifthe Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. Ifthe Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations ofthe City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "NA" or ifthe word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification al the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs-any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.I. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration ofthe Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
If the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director ofthe Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
โH-ยฅยซs ^N-o^^- ยฆ _ ,
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the Cily in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking olher action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the Cily determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law,:or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F.l. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor arc the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property (axes or sales taxes.
F.2 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications, equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent of the City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing. Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: Ifthe Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F.L, F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS arid Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
Sifiherf Brandford Shank & Co I I C (Print or type name of Disclosing Party)
(Sign here)
Karen Walker
(Print or type name of person signing)
Managing Director
(Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me onjclate)
at (Qj>~ir&โ County.
Commission expires:^*1
SUSANA CHAPARfiO OFFICIAL SEAL Notary Public. State at Illinois My Commission Explios October 04, 2015
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section IXB.l.a., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners ofthe Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers ofthe Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary ofa legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[]Yes LxINo
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature of such familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [X]No
Ifthe Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes . [X}No [ ] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of the person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address of the building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
jjljp Siebert &r^g^ Brandford โShank a Co., llc
535 Gi'swolci Sireel Sjile 2250 De;ro:t. Ml 4S226 313.496 4500
CORPORATE RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZATION
I, Suzanne Shank, President and Chief Executive Officer of Siebert Brandford Shank & Co., L.L.C. ("the Company"), an entity lawfully organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, do hereby certify that the following is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted on the 10th day of March, 1997 by the governing body of the Company, in accordance with all of its documents of governance and management and the laws of Delaware and further certify that such resolution has not been modified, rescinded or revoked, and is at present in full force and effect.
RESOLVED, that the proper officers of the Company be, and each of them hereby is, severally authorized, empowered, and directed to perform or to cause to be performed, in the name and on behalf of the Company or otherwise; such other acts under the corporate seal of the Company or otherwise as they or any of them shall deem necessary, appropriate or desirable, in order to folly effectuate the intent of the foregoing resolutions;
RESOLVED, that any and all acts taken or to be taken by any authorized officer of the Company or by any person or persons designated and authorized to act by any authorized officer of the Company, pursuant to and consistent with the authorizations embodied herein be, and they each hereby are, in all respects severally approved, ratified, confirmed and adopted as acts in the name and on behalf of the company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certificate this 25Ul of April
2011.
Name: Suzanne Sljhank
Title: President arid Chief Executive Officer
i
I
I
I I
Er==ยง8 Brandford Shank a Co., llc
I 00 Wall Street. 18'" Floor New York, NY lOOUb (646) 77S-48S0 - Telephone (646) 576-9680 - Fax
AUTHORIZED OFFICERS
I, Joseph A. Mendola, Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer of Siebert Brandford Shank & Co., L.L.C. ("the Company"), an entity lawfully organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, do hereby certify that the following is a true and correct list of authorized officers of the Company.
Patrick Amestoy Robert Baynes Donald Beier John Bingham Napoleon Brandford, III Dwight Bums Leslie Carey John Carter Thomas Corcoran Erlinda Cortez Tristram Deery Daniel Diaz Sean Duffy Harold Durk Laura Gruen Drew Gurley
Gary Hall Shawnell Holman Patricia Koetzner Andrew Kearney Jonathan Kirn Joseph Mendola John McLean Mark Price Joseph Ramos Suzanne Shank Lisa Smith Charles Sorkin Nick Sotell Theodore Spencer Richard Stack Stephen Stem
Sherman Swanson David Thomson Bill Thompson Kit Turner Myles Turner Karen Walker Sean Werdlow Debra Gordon Woods
An authorized officer ofthe firm may delegate, in writing, signatory authority, to a non-authorized officer, with a title of Vice President, in the course of executing authorizing documents of a municipal bond underwriting.
Title: Chief Compliance Officer
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certificate this 29th day of May, 2015.
!
!
AFFIDAVIT
DEBT OBLIGATION AND BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS
Name of Reporting Firm: Siebert Brandford Shank & Co., L.L.C.
Description of Matter: City of Chicago General Obligation
Role of Reporting Firm: Co-Senior Underwriter
This affidavit is submitted in conjunction with (check one):
X a City of Chicago debt obligation transaction (Municipal Code Section 2-154-017)
brokerage services for the City Treasurer (Municipal Code Section 2-154-018)
Fill out below (and attach additional sheets using the same format, if necessary), the following information for each person in the Reporting Firm who will directly provide professional services to the City in connection with the Matter described above: the individual's position in the Reporting Firm and the role he or she will fill in the Matter, gender, and race or ethnicity. Individuals' names need not be disclosed.
Individual # Position and Role Gender Race/Ethnicity
Gary Hall Senior Managing Director, Project Manager (m) F African American
Karen Walker Managing Director, Co-lead Banker M0 African American
Mark Price Senior Vice President, Co-lead Banker (Iti) F African American
Mauricio Nares Associate, Day Banking Support (m)f Hispanic
Andrew Gurley Managing Director, Underwriter (M)F Caucasian
(If needed, please me additional sheets to identify additional personnel.)
By signing below, I represent under penally of perjury that: (1) I am authorized to act on behalf of the Reporting Firm, and (2) the information in this Affidavit and associated attachment are true, complete, and correct.
By signing below, I understand and acknowledge, on behalf of the Reporting Firm, that failure to accurately and completely supply the information requested herein may result in a declaration of ineligibility to participate in future Matters for the City of Chicago.
Printed Name: Karen Walker
Signature:
Title: Managing Director
Date: 6-8-2015
i
I i
I
, Siebert S= Brandford
Shank a Co., llc
535 Gr.swold Street Sjile 2250 ~>e-ro.t Ml 43226 313 496 4500
CORPORATE RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZATION
I, Suzanne Shank, President and Chief Executive Officer of Siebert Brandford Shank & Co., L.L.C. ("the Company5'), an entity lawfully organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, do hereby certify lhat the following Is a true and correct copy ofa resolution adopted on the 10th day ofMarch, 1997 by the governing body of the Company, in accordance with all of its documents of governance and management and the laws of Delaware and further certify that such resolution has not been modified, rescinded or revoked, and is at present in full force and effect.
RESOLVED, that the proper officers ofthe Company be, arid each of them hereby is, severally authorized, empowered, and directed to perform or to cause to be performed, in the name and on behalf of the Company or otherwise; such other acts under the corporate seal of the Company or otherwise as they or any of them shall deem necessary, appropriate or desirable, in order to fully effectuate the intent of the foregoing resolutions;
RESOLVED, that any and all acts taken or to be taken by any authorized officer of the Company or by any person or persons designated and authorized to act by any authorized officer of the Company, pursuant to and consistent with the authorizations embodied herein be, and they each hereby are, in all respects severally approved, ratified, confirmed and adopted as acts in the name and on behalf of the company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certificate this 25th of April
Name: Suzanne i^jhank Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
2011.
i
I
I
I
AFFIDAVIT
DEBT OBLIGATION AND BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS
Name of Reporting Firm: Siebert Brandford Shank & Co., L.L.C.
Description of Matter: City of Chicago General Obligation
Role of Reporting Firm: Co-Senior Underwriter
This affidavit is submitted in conjunction with (check one):
X a City of Chicago debt obligation transaction (Municipal Code Section 2-154-017)
brokerage services for the City Treasurer (Municipal Code Section 2-154-018)
Fill out below (and attach additional sheets using the same format, if necessary), the following information for each person in the Reporting Firm who will directly provide professional services to the City in connection with the Matter described above: the individual's position in the Reporting Firm and the role he or she will fill in the Matter, gender, and race or ethnicity. Individuals' names need not be disclosed.
Individual # Position and Role Gender Race/Ethnicity
Gary Hall Senior Managing Director, Project Manager (m) f African American
Karen Walker Managing Director, Co-lead Banker M0 African American
Mark Price Senior Vice President, Co-lead Banker (Ivi) F African American
Mauricio Nares Associate, Day Banking Support Hispanic
Andrew Gurley Managing Director, Underwriter Caucasian
(If needed, please use additional sheets to identify additional personnel.)
By signing below, I represent under penalty of perjury that: (1) I am authorized to act on behalf of the Reporting Firm, and (2) the information in this Affidavit and associated attachment are true, complete, and correct.
By signing below, I understand and acknowledge, on behalf of the Reporting Firm, that failure to accurately and completely supply the information requested herein may result in a declaration of ineligibility to participate in future Matters for the City of Chicago.
Printed Name: Karen Walker
Signature:
Title: Managing Director Date: 6-8-2015
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I -- GENERAL INFORMATION
Legal name ofthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: Muriel Siebert & Co., Inc.
Check ONE of the following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
[)ยฃ a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name ofthe Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest: Siebert Brandford Shank & Co., L.L.C.
OR
3. [ ] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
Business address ofthe Disclosing Party: 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3100
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: 212-644-2418 Fax: 212-644-2784 Email: jramost@sbsco.com
Name of contact person: Joseph M. Ramos, Jr.
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one): _
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? DeParImeriI of Finance
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY 1. Indicale the nature ofthe Disclosing Party:
[ ] Person [ ]
Publicly registered business corporation [ ]
[ ] Privately held business corporation [ ]
[ ] Sole proprietorship [ ]
[ ] General partnership (Is
[ ] Limited partnership
[ ] Trust [ ]
Limited liability company Limited liability partnership Joint venture
Not-for-profit corporation
the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable-Delaware
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
W Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors ofthe entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management of the Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
Joseph M. Ramos, Jr. Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 ofthe Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
Siebert Financial Corporation 885 Third Ave., Suite 3100 100%
New York, NY 10022
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[]Yes [^No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) ofsuch City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
N/A
SECTION IV DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount ofthe fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V -- CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes 0^ No [] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
2. The Disclosing Party and, ifthe Disclosing Party is a legal enlity, all of those persons or entities
identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted ofa criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
3. The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization ofa business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization ofa responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Parly, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Parly or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the Cily, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any slate or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been con victed or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ofthe U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
N/A
Page 6 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, il will be conclusively presumed lhat the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees ofthe Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
9. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name ofthe City recipient.
N/A
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[)J is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
N/A
Page 7 of 13
Ifthc letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Parly certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 ofthe Municipal Code: Does any official or employee ofthe City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[]Yes [31 No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.L, proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. If you checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit ofthe City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.L, provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature of such interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply wilh these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into wilh the Cily in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
X 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: Ifthe Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. Ifthc Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations ofthe City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Parly will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Parly certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party musl maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthe Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action wilh respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
Ifthe City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page II of 13
F.l. The Disclosing Parly is nol delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor arc the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or olher charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent of the City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that docs not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F.L, F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as ofthe date furnished to the City.
Muriel Siebert & Co., Inc.
(Print or type name of Disclosing Party)
Joseph M. Ramos, Jr.
(Print or type name of person signing)
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on
at N*u*> ^jonM- County,
(date) JuyiM- ff, fat-l* M 1/ - (state).
Commission expiresftONALD R. BONO
Notary Public, State of New York
No.01B06178149 Qualified in New York City County Commission Expires 11/19/2015
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" wilh any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section U.B.l.a., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Parry is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers ofthe Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means tlie president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[JYes [^No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [XI No
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [X]No [ ] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of the person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address of the building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDLX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORM ATION
A. Legal name ofthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: Siebert Financial Corporation
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
ยงQ a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest: Siebert Brandford Shank & Co., L.L.C.
OR
3. [] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
โ โ . r- .i -p. ยฆ i โข n * 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3100
B. Business address of the Disclosing Party: '
NewYork, NY 10022
Telephone: 212-644-2418 Fax: 212-644-2784 Email: jramos@sbsco.com
Name of contact person: Joseph M. Ramos, Jr.
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II- DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
[] [X [] [] [] [] []
1. Indicate the nature ofthe Disclosing P Person
Publicly registered business corporation Privately held business corporation Sole proprietorship General partnership Limited partnership
Trust
arty:
[ ] Limited liability company
[ ] Limited liability partnership
[ ] Joint venture
[ ] Not-for-profit corporation
(Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Other (please specify)
country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable:
Delaware
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ JN/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors ofthe entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
Ifthe entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
Jane Macon, Independent Chairwoman of the Board
Joseph M. Ramos, Jr. Acting Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Executive V.P. Assistant Sec.
Daniel Lesu, Secretary
Please see attached listing of board members
Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liabilily company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant lo Section 2-154-030 ofthe Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
Estate of Muriel Siebert* 885 Third Ave., Suite 3100 90%
New York, NY 10022
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[]Yes [^No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
*Siebert Financial Corporation is a publicly traded company of which the Estate of Muriel Siebert owns 90% ofthe stock. The remainder is publicly traded.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
k/j Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [j^No [ ] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), ifthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
2. The Disclosing Parly and, ifthe Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted ofa criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them, in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, stale or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
3. The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization ofa business entity following the ineligibility ofa business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Enlity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the dale this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an A ffiliated Entity of a Contractor during the five years before the date ofsuch Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee ofthe City, the State of Illinois, or any agency ofthe federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission ofsuch conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or ofthe United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any ofthe above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
N/A
Page 6 of 13
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Parly who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago (if none, indicate wilh "N/A" or "none").
9. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a
complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the
12-monlh period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed
official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything
made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the
course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate
with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name ofthe City recipient.
N/A
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
Ifthe Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate ofa predatory lender may result in the loss ofthe privilege of doing business with the City."
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
I
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Patty certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 ofthe Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[JYes [ยฃNo
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit ofthe City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.L, provide the names and business addresses ofthe City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature of such interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. Ifthe Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection wilh the Matter voidable by the City.
X 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Parly has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. Ifthe Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations ofthe City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or ifthe letters "NA" or ifthe word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A. 1. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that cither: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the. Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party musl maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and musl make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthe Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
Ifthe City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party lo participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. Ifthe Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F.l. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor arc the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parlies List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Parly is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any ofthe items in F.l., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) arc true, accurate and complete as ofthe date furnished to the City.
Siebert Financial Corporation
(Print or type name of Disclosing Party)
Joseph M. Ramos, Jr.
(Print or type name of person signing)
Chief Financial Officer (Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date) ^TuV T, f A at A)^U / Wfc County, r^> . 1/ fetate)**.,-. ^ โข โข. >
^m^rn^^ Notary Public-
Notary Public, State of New York
Commission cxpiregjo, Q1B06178149 .
Qualified in New York City County
Commission Expires 11/19/2015 Page 12 0f 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section U.B.l.a., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners ofthe Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[]Yes [^No
If yes, please identify below (I) the name and title ofsuch person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
Siebert Financial Corporation Board of Directors
Jane H. Macon, Esq.
Chairwoman, Siebert Financial Corp.
Partner, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
Robert P. Mazzarella Vice Chairman, Siebert Financial Corp Chairman and CEO, Pyxis Mobile Former President, Fidelity Investments Brokerage Services LLLC
Patricia L Francy
Retired Treasurer & Controller
Columbia University
Nancy Peterson Hearn President and Chief Executive Officer Peterson Tool Company, Inc.
i
i
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicanl exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [ X< No
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [ yc] No [ ] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of the person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address ofthe building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTD7ICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I-- GENERAL INFORMATION
Legal name ofthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable:
Estate of Muriel Siebert
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
[% a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest: Siebert Brandford Shank & Co., L.L.C.
OR
3. [ ] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
Business address ofthe Disclosing Party: 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3100
NewYork, NY 10022
Telephone: 212-644-2418 Fax: 212-644-2784 Email:
Name of contact person: Jane H. Macon
E. Federal Employer Identification No. (ifyou have one): _
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
~ โโ. u , nno Department of Finance
Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS?
Ifthe Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II โ DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
Person
Publicly registered business corporation
Privately held business corporation
Sole proprietorship
General partnership
Limited partnership
Trust
[ ] Limited liability company
[ ] Limited liability partnership
[] Joint venture
[ ] Not-for-profit corporation
(Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ 3 Yes [ ] No
[>ยง Other (please specify)
Estate of Muriel Siebert
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable:
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management of the Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
Jane H. Macon, Executor
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, stale "None." NOTE: Pursuant lo Section 2-154-030 ofthe Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
None
SECTION III -- BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[JYes [^No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV -- DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount ofthe fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative Or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicale whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Parly Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rale" or "t.b.d." is
nol an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
[ ] Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes D3 No [ ] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
I. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), ifthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee ofthe City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
2. The Disclosing Party and, ifthe Disclosing Parly is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section U.B.I, of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the dale of this EDS, been convicted ofa criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
3. The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization ofa business entity following the ineligibility ofa business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Parly, nor any Contractor, nor any A ffiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Parly or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the dale this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Enlity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date ofsuch Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection wilh the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee ofthe Cily, the State of Illinois, or any agency of Ihe federal government or of any state or local government in the United Slates of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission ofsuch conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or ofthe United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any ofthe following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ofthe U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security ofthe U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any ofthe above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
Page 6 of 13
Ifthc letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified lo the above statements.
8. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any lime during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate wi th "N/A" or "none").
N/A
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient.
N/A
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[ ] is y is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 ofthe Municipal Code: Does any official or employee ofthe City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. If you checked "No" to Item D.L, proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.L, provide the names and business addresses ofthe City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature of such interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. Ifthe Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the IVtatter voidable by the City.
x__l. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Parly has searched any and all records of
the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Parly has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: Ifthe Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. Ifthe Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Parly certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has nol engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Parly must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
If the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII โ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matler, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking olher action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
Ifthe City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F.l. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any-facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: Ifthe Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any ofthe items in F.l., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as ofthe date furnished to the City.
>ign hyre) Jane H. Macon
(Print or type name of person signing)
Executor, Estate of Muriel Siebert (Print or type title of person signing)
y:.a^ County, I X|1010|
Signed and sworn to before me on (date) LJLIMJL,
Commission expires:
JENNIFER J.THOMAS >
ยฆ*" NOTARY PUBLIC V' STATE OF TEXAS Vff&ffi' My Comm 12.04-2017 *
Page 12 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Parly or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as of the date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any ofthe following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section ILB.l.a., ifthe Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers ofthe Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in tlie Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [Xi No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name of the legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [X]No
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [X]No [ ] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name ofthe person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address of the building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FELLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
Legal name ofthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable-Academy Securities, Inc.
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[XJ the Applicant
OR
[ ] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name ofthe
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest:
OR
3. [ ] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name ofthe entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
Business address of the Disclosing Party: 550 W. Van Buren, Suite 1410
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: 312 . 635 . 0868 Fax: 858 .408 .4260 Email: fpaulQacademysecurities .com
Name of contact person: Frank Paul
E. Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? citv oยฃ Department of Finance
Ifthe Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page I of 13
SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
[ ] Person
[ ] Publicly registered business corporation
P3 Privately held business corporation
[ ] Sole proprietorship
[ ] General partnership
[ ] Limited partnership
[ ] Trust
[ ] Limited liability company
[ ] Limited liability partnership
[] Joint venture
[ ] Not-for-profit corporation
(Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: Delaware
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign enlity?
Yes [ ] No [} N/A
FJ. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there arc no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
R. Chance Mims Chief Executive Officer
Philip McConkey President
Anthony Graham Chief Financial Officer
Douglas Greenwood Chief Operating Officer
Michael Boyd Chief Compliance.Officer
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples ofsuch an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest of a beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 ofthe Municipal Code of Chicago ("'Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
None
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the .12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes M No
If yes, please identify below the namc(s) ofsuch City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV -- DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature ofthe relationship, and the total amount ofthe fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who arc paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must cither ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
Mayer Brown 71 S. Wacker Dr, Chicago IL Underwriter's Counsel $75,000 estimated
(Add sheets if necessary)
[ ] Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V -- CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [X] No [ ] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
2. The Disclosing Party and, if the Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted ofa criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property:
arc not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
c. have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
3. The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership: identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization ofa business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization ofa responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of cither the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity of a Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or ad judged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise: or
made an admission ofsuch conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, bur have nol been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any ofthe following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ofthe U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security ofthe U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below;
N/A
Page 6 of 13
Ifthc letters "NA." the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
S. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees ofthe Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 1 2-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe Cily of Chicago (if none, indicate with "'N/A" or "none").
N/_A
9. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than S20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient.
N/A
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
p
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
Ifthc Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"Wc are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, ii will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-1 56-1 10 of ihe Municipal Code; Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[]Ycs ยฃ]No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Y'cs" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D. L, proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [XJ No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D. 1 provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
_X [. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of
the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records;
SECTION VI CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE; If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City arc not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the lederai Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with
respect to the Matter; ( Add sheets if necessary): None
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A. 1. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
|1010|
I
I
I
i
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification ai the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of I9S6 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthe Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
M Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[y\ Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
P3 Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
pq Yes [ ] No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement. City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it musr comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at wvvw.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
Ifthc City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all ofthe information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 ofthe Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F.L The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities^ delinquent in paying any-fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to tlie City. This includes, but is not limited to. all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the LL S. General Services Administration.
F.3 Ifthc Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent of the City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that docs not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: Ifthe Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any ofthe items in F.L. F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (I) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
(Print or type name of person signing)
(Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date)
Page 12 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Parmer thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any ofthe following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers ofthe Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B.l.a., ifthe Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners ofthe Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthc Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthc Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers ofthe Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary ofa legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title ofsuch person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ JYes [X]No
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [x ] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name ofthe person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address of the building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDLX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
i
I
I
I
j
i
AFFIDAVIT
DEBT OBLIGATION AND BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS
Name of Reporting Firm: Academy Securities. Inc
Description of Matter: General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
Role of Reporting Firm: _C.o-manager
This affidavit is submitted in conjunction with (check one):
X_ a City of Chicago debt obligation transaction (Municipal Code Section 2-154-017)
brokerage services for the City Treasurer (Municipal Code Section 2-154-018)
Fill out below (and attach additional sheets using the same format, if necessary), the following information for each person in the Reporting Firm who will directly provide professional services to the City in connection with the Matter described above: the individual's position in the Reporting Firm and the role he or she will fill in the Matter, gender, and race or ethnicity. Individuals* names need not be disclosed.
Individual # Position and Role Gender Race/Ethnicity
Frank Paul Managing Director -lead banker (m) f Caucasian
Michael Boyd Managing Director- co lead C3)F Hispanic
Anthony Graham Chief Financial Officer Hispanic
Sadie Millard Associate -Support banker M fj5 Caucasian
Beth Tolomeo Managing Director - Sales M(D Caucasian
(If needed, please use additional sheets lo identify additional personnel.)
By signing below, I represent under penalty of perjury' that: (1)1 am authorized to act on behalf ofthe Reporting Firm, and (2) the information in this Affidavit and associated attachment are true, complete, and correct.
By signing below, I understand and acknowledge, on behalf ofthe Reporting Firm, that failure to accurately and completely supply the information requested herein may result in a declaration of ineligibility to participate in future Matters for the City of Chicago.
Printed Name: ,p ft A fi >1 (J l~
<^gr fl (J j/
Signature: fft.^
Title: Wfttifi Crl^G* PlR^C^R Date: ^ b /
I
i i
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable:
Check ONE of the following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
f*ยฃthe Applicant
OR
[] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest:
OR
3. [] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
Business address ofthe Disclosing Party: ^/S^ ^ifyfWW P(j?-& DB-vA - Savk. 3 Ml
ยฃ<3 (Srt, C o. G A
Telephone:(3 /2Q 3 l/f. o>o.qa Fax: Email: Ct/lH^f\Rrj ยฎ> rift*. IVW&. <Name of contact person:
E. Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one): _
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Dj? p4 's>^ T^TaT0/^^
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please โข complete the following:
/
Specification // and Contract #
Page I of 13
I
I
I
I
I
i
SECTION II -- DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY 1. Indicate the nature of the Disclosing Party:
Person [ L-bimTted liability company
Publicly registered business corporation [ ] Limited liability partnership
Privately held business corporation [ ] Joint venture
Sole proprietorship [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
General partnership (Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
Limited partnership [ ] Yes [ ] No
Trust [ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable:
*^4&JAfoiS
3. For legal entities not organized in the Slate of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ ] Yes [ ] No T^N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title ยป
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Disclosing Party. Examples ofsuch an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest of a beneficiary of a trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
H/KW tsss at. C^W^-^ 9ยฃji__
S vryi^ 3Afc> .
Qjicc^y^
Cs^Ca {<
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
If yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as tlie nature of the relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
fY\fCkj *ยฃ. \3&sL*t IIS- ttf# (*h t c QfTTts&my
. 6^
(Add sheets if necessary)
[ ] Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes y>%^io^ [ ] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Party and, ifthe Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.L of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or slate antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any ofthe offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3,4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
ยฆ any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls tlie Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
โข any responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United Slates of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or ofthe United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security ofthe U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
Page 6 of 13
I
I
I
I
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all cunent employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
/fAy/v^ .
9. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient.
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
JVfui^ [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Athf-
Page 7 of 13
Ifthc letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee ofthe City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes PtftC
NOTE: If you checked "Yes" to Item D.L, proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.L, proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for properly taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power docs not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.L, provide the names and business addresses of tlie City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check cither 1. or 2. below. Ifthc Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in au attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
/^^The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of
the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI -- CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add, sheets if necessary):
*Jt -
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.L above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
I
I
I
! i
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy of the statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that cither: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of tlie Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.I. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthe Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of infonnation contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any infonnation submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept cunent. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
i
I
i i
i
I
i i
! i
i
I
I
i
F.l. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent of the City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any ofthe items in F.L, F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
(Print or type.
Jign here)
(Print or type name of person signing)
tie ofye
AA
(Print or type title orfferson signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date) (Xp/fJ*? /JQ/'d
at _LVok County, UfosTfl (state).
ffyyifjK VflfrtVlMW? Notary Public.
Commission expires: Q( /Xo /iff
โข OFFICIAL SEAL AMYKVITZTHUM NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF ILLINOIS MY COMMISSION EXPIRES^ 1/30/18
Page 12 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as of the date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers ofthe Disclosing Party listed in Section ILB.l.a., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary ofa legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title ofsuch person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature of such familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
i
I
i
i
I
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [^flo"""
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [ JNo [A^-No^Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of the person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address of die building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name ofthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable:
A/1 ?J\I{to Is C^MFdr/^ JiCheck ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicanl
OR
/f^^TTegai entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of tlie Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest: fM %Jv?rf S SL-^oPa^s /(^
OR (
3. [ ] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.L) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
Business address of the Disclosing Party: <2T-fyp^/t?f ffik^ T^j VS. SoiยซfV
Telephoned) 2.) -3*4-1 -QqgS Fax: Email: tM^i VW Q>M^-(Vfo<*>, <^โข
Name of contact person:
E. Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
f^r-T^ c^b/ftsgAw ^^aJasvy^ -Ssafto yWhich City agency or department is requesting this EDS? ยฃX<(?If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # _^ and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
1. Indicate the nature of the Disclosing Party:
[] Person [ ^--Limited liability company
[ ] Publicly registered business corporation [ J Limited liability partnership
[ ] Privately held business corporation [ ] Joint venture
[ ] Sole proprietorship [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
[ ] General partnership (Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Limited partnership [ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Trust [ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorpora tion or organization, if applicable:
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois; Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ ] Yes [ ] No D
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors ofthe entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name
me Title a A a A
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary of a trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended lo achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
('shte^Lpt)* <5/m(^T
5-cvHs_ -3,/^
ft
SECTfON IU - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[] Yes
If yes, please identify below the name(s) ofsuch City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matler, as well as the nature ofthe relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party musl either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
f^Check here ifthc Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes y^o^ [ ] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Party and, if the Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Partyi under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official of the Disclosing Parly, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization ofa responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
I
I
I
I|1010|
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date.this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity of a Contractor during the five years before the date ofsuch Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission ofsuch conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of tlie U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
Page 6 of 13
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
4ยฑpt
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an. employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed; below, please also list the name ofthe City recipient.
: /u/jt
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION 1. The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
2. If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predaiory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
I
If tlie letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 ofthe Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes tfftfo
NOTE: If you checked "Yes" to Item D.L, proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.L, proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.l., provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. Ifthe Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
fr 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI ยป CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "NA" or ifthe word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined, by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
i i
I
I
I
I
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration ofthe Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthe Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or olher City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on tlie Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 ofthe Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
F.l. The Disclosing Parly is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A.on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: Ifthe Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F.L, F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as ofthe date furnished to the City.
(Print or type name of person signing)
(Print or type tit|c of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before mc on (date) OU)/aR
at _JjQQk County, m tins? A (state).
^rYlLj K. Vife-fVlUlf^ Notary Public
Commission expires: 0\/5Qjl% . โข
Page 12 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as of the date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B.La., ifthe Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof cunently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ]Yes
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of tlie elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal
Code?
[ ]Yes
2. If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ]No
[ JYes
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name ofthe person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address ofthe building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDED B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND TH AT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
AFFIDAVIT
DEBT OBLIGATION AND BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS
Name of Reporting Firm: Melvin Securities, llc
Description of Matter: City of Chicago GO Refinancing Bonds 2015
Role of Reporting Firm: Co- Manager
This affidavit is submitted in conjunction with (check one):
V a City of Chicago debt obligation transaction (Municipal Code Section 2-154-017)
brokerage services for the City Treasurer (Municipal Code Section 2-154-018)
Fill out below (and attach additional sheets using the same format, if necessary), the following information for each person in (he Reporting Firm who will directly provide professional services to the City in connection with the Matter described above: the individual's position in the Reporting Firm and the role he or she will fill in the Matter, gender, and race or ethnicity. Individuals' names need not be disclosed.
Individual # Position and Role Gender Race/Ethnicity |109|Managing MBR. .Banker, Salesman M African-American
M F
M F
M F
M F
(If needed, please use additional sheets to identify additional personnel.)
By signing below, I represent under penally of perjury that: (1) I am authorized to act on behalf of the Reporting Firm, and (2) the information in this Affidavit and associated attachment are true, complete, and correct.
By signing below, I understand and acknowledge, on behalf of the Reporting Firm, that failure to accurately and completely supply the information requested herein may result in a declaration of ineligibility to participate in future Matters for the Cily of Chicago.
Signature:
Title: Managing Member
Date: June 8,2015
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: BMO Capital Markets GKST Inc.
Check ONE of the following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[X] the Applicant
OR
[ ] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name ofthe
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest:
OR
3. [] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
B. Business address of the Disclosing Party: 115 South LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: 312-845-2005 Fax: 312-658-4678 Email: marylee.corrigan@bmo.com
Name of contact person: Mary Lee Corrigan
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please-complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
SECTION If ~ DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
1. Indicate the nature of the Disclosing Party:
[] Person [] Limited liability company
[] Publicly registered business corporation [] Limited liability partnership
|X] Privately held business corporation [ ] Joint venture
[ ] Sole proprietorship [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
[ ] General partnership (Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Limited partnership [ ] Yes [ ] No
[] Trust [] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: Delaware
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
ft Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
Ifthe entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title See attached
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
I I I
I
interest, ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 ofthe Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
BMP Financial Corp. 111 W. Monroe Street 100%
Chicago, Illinois 60603
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) ofsuch City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an emplo}'ee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) tNOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
Mayer Brown LLP, retained, 71 S. Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606, underwiter's counsel, $75,000 estimated.
(Add sheets if necessary)
[ ] Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V โ CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[JYes []No |XJ No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ J No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1 -23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee ofthe City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
I
I
2. The Disclosing Party and, ifthc Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
arc not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft ; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
arc not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Enlity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date ofsuch Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency ofthe federal government or of any slate or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (I) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
N/A
Page 6 of 13
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Parly certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a
complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any lime during the 12-
month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official,
ofthe City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
None
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name ofthe City recipient.
None
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[X] is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
Ifthe Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. Wc understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary): .
N/A
Page 7 of 13
i
i
I i
Ifthc letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or tenns that are defined, in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D. 1., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.L, provide the names and business addresses ofthe City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature of such interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all infonnation required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply wilh these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the Cily.
X 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI -- CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or ifthe letters "NA" or ifthe word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party-has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
I
I
i I
j I
j
! I
i
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthe Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[JYes []No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ 3 Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
I I
I
I
I
I
j i
I
I
I
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in die Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all ofthe information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offen|es7rfate*1f^^ regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as reqliired by Cha^fex;}^ and Secti|n 2-154-020 ofthe Municipal Code.
The Biliscl&sihg Parยฅy"represcrits and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F.I. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: Ifthe Disclosing Parly cannot certify as to any of the items in F.L, F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate . and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
BMP Capital Markets GKST Inc.
(Print or type name of Disclosing Party)
/(Sigiwiere) ^
Mary Lee Corrigan
(Print or type name of person signing)
Managing Director
(Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date) June 8, 2015
at Cook County, Illinois (state).
Notary Public
Page 12 of 13
|109|EVAN ORR " ';"i'%
( Notary Public - State of Illinois jh
i My Commission Expires Jan 5, -2016 -.,;โข i
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" wilh any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B. La., ifthe Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members ofthe Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers ofthe Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. 'Trincipal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title ofsuch person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title ofthe elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
I
I
I
i
i I
I
I
i
BMP Capital Markets GKST Inc. (Wholly-owned Subsidiary of BMO Financial Corp.)
Board of Directors
Mary Lee Corrigan James Fitzgerald Dale Hoffman Kenneth Librot
Lyle McCoy Brad Reid Brad Rothbaum Chris Taves
Executive Officers
James Fitzgerald Lyle McCoy Mary Lee Corrigan
Tab Stewart
Chief Executive Officer and President
Executive Vice President
Chief Financial Officer, Chief Administrative
Officer and Treasurer
Secretary
i
I
I
I
i
I
i
i I
i
I
AFFIDAVIT
DEBT OBLIGATION AND BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS
Name of Reporting Firm: _BMO Capital Markets
Description of Matter: _GeneraI Obligation Bonds Underwriting_
Role of Reporting Firm: _Co-Manager
This affidavit is submitted in conjunction with (check one):
X a City of Chicago debt obligation transaction (Municipal Code Section 2-154-017)
brokerage services for the City Treasurer (Municipal. Code Section 2-154-018)
Fill out below (and attach additional sheets using the same format, if necessary), the following information for each person in the Reporting Firm who will directly provide professional services to the City in connection with the Matter described above: the individual's position in the Reporting Firm and the role he or she will fill in the Matter, gender, and race or ethnicity. Individuals' names need not be disclosed.
Individual # Position and Role Gender Race/Ethnicity |109|Managing Director, senior banker ยฉF White, non-Hispanic |109|Director, senior banker ยฉF African-American |109|Director, transaction support Mยฉ White, non-Hispanic |109|Director, Negotiated underwriter ยฉF White, non-Hispanic |109|Vice President, transaction support ยฉF White, non-Hispanic
(Jf needed, please use additional sheets io identify additional personnel.)
By signing below, I represent under penalty of perjury that: (1) I am authorized to act on behalf of tlie Reporting Firm, and (2) the information in this Affidavit and associated attachment are true, complete, and correct.
By signing below, I understand and acknowledge, on behalf of the Reporting Finn, that failure to accurately and completely supply tlie information requested herein may result in a declaration of ineligibility to participate in future Matters for the City of Chicago.
Printed Name
Signature:
Title: Managing Director
Date: June 8,2015
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: BMO Financial Corp.
Check ONE of the following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
[X] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest:bmo Capital Markets gkst inc. .
OR
3. [] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.L) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
B. Business address ofthe Disclosing Party: 111 W.Monroe Slreet
Chicago. Illinois 60603
Telephone: 312461-2824 pax: 312-293-8020 Email: pamela.piarowski@bmo.com
Name of contact person: Pamela Piarowskl
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete die following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page I of 13
SECTION II- DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
I. Indicate the nature of the Disclosing P; [ ] Person
[ ] Publicly registered business corporation [x] Privately held business corporation [ ] Sole proprietorship [ ] General partnership [ ] Limited partnership [] Trust
[ ] Limited liability company
[ ] Limited liability partnership
[ ] Joint venture
[ ] Not-for-profit corporation
(Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: Delaware
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
{X] Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there arc no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titlcholdcr(s).
Ifthe entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership or joint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management of the Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title See Attached
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess oT7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant lo Section 2-1 5-1-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
Bank of Montreal First Canadian Place 100%
21st Floor, 100 King Street West
Toronto, Ontario M5X 1A1
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code, with any City elected, official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes ft No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) ofsuch City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party miist disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount.of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Parry is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action ofi behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity^ on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section,the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
!
! i
i i i
i
i i
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship lo Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
(XJ Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [ ] No fX) No person directly dr indirectly owns 10% or.more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes,1* has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with diat agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been.convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
I
I
I
I
The Disclosing Party and, if the Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B. 1. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
c. have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or. legal entities disclosed under Section TV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
ยป any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or.entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or. entity. Indicia of control.include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; dr organization of a business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially tlie same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term.Affiliated Entity means a person.or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization ofa responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date ofsuch Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee ofthe City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any ofthe following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ofthe U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, tlie Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with (he applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
N/A
Page 6 of 13
I
i
I J
!
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the Lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees ofthe Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official,
of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). None
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution dale of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient.
None
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
P<] is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
Ifthe Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate ofa predatory lender, may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable; to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within tlie meaning of Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
N/A
Page 7 of 13
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes |X] No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes F5] No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.l., provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such intercstand identify the nature ofsuch interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Parly must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into wilh the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
x 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from 'slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Parly verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: Ifthe Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations ofthe City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter': (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if tlie letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy of the statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that cither: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicanl, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
If the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information wilh their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (Sec 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports duc under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[]Yes []No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements lo the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
โขD. It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims Ayhich it may have against the City in connection with the public release of mformation contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing Party must supplement this. EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified offenses)~the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period, as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 ofthe Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
F. 1. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by (he Illinois Department of Revenue, nor arc the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 Ifthe Disclosing Parly is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Parly will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: Ifthc Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any ofthe items in F.L, F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as ofthe date furnished to the City.
BMP Financial Corp.
(Print or type name of Disclosing Party)
(Sign here)
Pamela Piarowski
(Print or type name of person signing)
Senior Vice President
(Print or type title of person signing)
. UU^^ Notary Public. | ^iC^SeM^
| My ยฆ
r
Signed and sworn to before mc on (date) June 8, 2015
at Cook County, Illinois (state).
Commission expires:
"OFFICIAL SEAL" D _ โ
SHARLENE R CHANEY PaSc f 2 ยฐr 13 Notary Public, State of Illinois My Commission Expires 9/10/2017
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, tlie Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any ofthe following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section ILB. La., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members ofthe Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers ofthe Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable. Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [XJ No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title ofsuch person, (2) the name of the legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) die name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a.familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
BMP Financial Corp.
Directors
Frank M. Clark - Chairperson
Chris Begy
Adela Cepeda
John W. Daniels
William A. Downc
David A. Galloway
Bonnie L. Howard
David J. Lubar
Robert Prichard
John Rau
John S. Shiely
Frank Tcchar
Michael Van Handel
Executive Officers
Chris Begy David R. Casper
Bradley D. Chapin
Alexandra Dousmanis-Curtis
Jeff Ellis David Gordon
Chief Executive Officer
Executive Vice-President, Commercial Banking Division
Executive Vice-President, Business Banking
Executive Vice-President, Head, U.S. Retail Banking, U.S. Personal and Commercial Banking
Executive Vice-President, U.S. General Counsel, Chief Legal Officer and Assistant Secretary
Executive Vice President, U.S. Chief Technology & Operations Officer
Executive Vice-President, Head, U.S. Private Banking
Senior Vice-President, Head, Personal and Small
Business Banking and Community Reinvestment Act Officer
I
I
!
i
i
Craig T. Ingram Andrew Karp
Stephen Lobo
Christopher J. McComish
Bany Mclnerney
Cecily Mistarz Peter Myers
Danicla O'Leary-Gill
Gail S. Palac
Pamela C. Piarowski Brad Reid Paul Renard
Stephen Taylor George Walz
Senior Vice-President, Business Continuity Planning
Senior Vice-President, Chief Regulatory Officer and Deputy General Counsel
Senior Vice President and Treasurer
Executive Vice-President, Head, Strategy, Products and Segments, U.S. Personal and Commercial Banking
Executive Vice-President and Co-CEO BMO Global Asset Management.
Chief Risk Officer, BMO Financial Group
Managing Director & Head Investment & Corporate Banking, U.S.
Senior Vice-President, and Head, U.S. Anti-Money
Laundering Program Oversight and Community
Reinvestment Act Officer
Senior Vice-President and Chief Auditor, U.S.
Operations
Senior Vice-President, Finance
Executive Vice President, Head, Trading Products U.S.
Senior Vice-President and Chief Human Resources Officer
Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
Senior Vice-President and U.S Chief Compliance Officer
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name ofthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: Bank of Montreal
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
[X] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest: BMP Capital Markets GKST Inc., through DMO Financial Corp.
OR
[ ] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name ofthe entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
B. Business address of the Disclosing Party: First Canadian Place, 21 st Floor
100 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5X1A1
Telephone: 312-461-5643 Fax: ยฆยปZ-"ยป-8*" Email: craig.ingram@bmo.com
Name of contact person: Craig Ingram
Federal EmployerTdcntification No. (if you have one): _
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete die following:
Specification it and Contract #. :
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II -
- DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
1. Indicale the nature of the Disclosing [ ] Person
[X] Publicly registered business corporation [ ] Privately held business corporation [ ] Sole proprietorship [ ] General partnership [ ] Limited partnership [] Trust
[ ] Limited liability company
[ ] Limited liability partnership
[] Joint venture
[ ] Not-for-profit corporation
(Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: Canada
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
|X]Ycs []No []N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates of other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or arty other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
See Attached
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership or joint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest of a member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
None
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH. CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes ยฃ<] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) ofsuch City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV -- DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of tlie relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) ,a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, pr (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part Of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure.is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
(XJ Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V -- CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [ ] No No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
L Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), ifthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is .the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Party and, ifthe Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted ofa criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, stale or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government:
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
- any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls die Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
ยซ any responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee, of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of cither the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee ofthe City, the State of Illinois, or any agency ofthe federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission ofsuch conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or ofthe United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any ofthe following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands tmd shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-S6 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
N/A
Page 6 of 13
I
I I
I
i
I i
!
i I
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees ofthe Disclosing Party who were, al any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official,
ofthe City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). None
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a
complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the
12-month period preceding the.execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed
official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything
made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the
course of official City business and having a retail value pf less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate
with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient. None
C, CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
fX] is []is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
Ifthe Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
" Wc arc not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
N/A
Page 7 of 13
Ifthc letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 ofthe Municipal Code: Docs any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes f*] No
NOTE; Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest widiin the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ J Yes F<] No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.l., provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature of such interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Parly checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure lo
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
x 1. The Disclosing Party verifies lhat the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Parly has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI -- CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations, of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "N A" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that. NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.L above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy of the statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Parly must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthc Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (Sec 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ 3 No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Comrnission.al! reports duc under the applicable filing requirements?
[JYes [3 No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ 3 Yes [ J No
Ifyou checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, plcaso provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Parly understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the Cily in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
Ifthe City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at lavy, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing.Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet-site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against, the City in connection With the public release of information contained in this EDS arid also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing Party must supplement this EDS up to. the time Hie City takes action on the Matter. Ifthe Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
as recpjired- by!Ohopter.l-753 aU'Sectioa 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code. The Disclosing Party represents and"v^arrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F.l. The Disclosing Parly is not delinquent in the payment of any tax. administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.I. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has hot provided pr cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: Ifthc Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any ofthe items in F.L, F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to die City.
Bank of Montreal
(Print or type name of Disclosing Party) By:
(Sign here) Pamela Piarowski
(Print or type name of person signing)
Senior Vice President
(Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me oh (date) June 8, 2015
at Coojc County, Illinois (state).
Notary Public.
Commission cxpires:_
I
I
F. 1. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor arc the Disclosing Parly or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.L and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F.L, F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
Bank of Montreal
(Print or type namejiยฃDisclosing Party)
โ\?^-tf
(Sign here) 1
Craig Ingram
(Print or type name of person signing)
Senior Vice President
(Print or type title of person, signing)
Signed, and sworn to before me on (date) June 8, 2015
at Cook County, Illinois (state).
Notary Public.
(^/^A^^^A^B , Nob
Commission expiJ is: OFFICIAL SEAL
< KKR1N L MORGAN
KSRIN L MORGAN '
Notiry Public - SUM ol Illinois > My Commission Expires Auq 25,2ยฉSge *3 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any ofthe following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers ofthe Disclosing Party listed in Section DLB.l.a., ifthe Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a h'mited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary ofa legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an. elected.city official or department head?
[]Yes [XJNo
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature of such familial relationship.
< ilti ยปi a <ยซ--~- ยฆยปยฆยป ยฆ* ^ mi
J
JvAt)F>av: j tf.ยซA> r-i;A ISVvjxS f:0'ยซ:r,'f..-' \M ,
BANK OF MONTREAL
Persons Authorized to Act for the Bank
RESOLVED:
THAT the following officers of Bank of Montreal (the "Bank"), being the chief executive officer or the chairman of the board or any member of the Executive Committee, acting alone, or any vice-president or any managing director acting with any vice-president or managing director or with the corporate secretary or an assistant corporate secretary, is/are hereby authorized, for and on behalf ofthe Bank, to make, enter into and execute any and all offers, contracts, agreements, leases, extensions and renewals of leases, deeds, acceptances, assignments, transfers, discharges, releases, deeds of main-levee and other documents or instruments similar or dissimilar to the foregoing; and, without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, to acquire by purchase, exchange or otherwise, and to make loans and advances upon the security of, and to dispose of by sale, exchange or otherwise, property, whether real or personal, movable or immovable, and to grant leases and extensions and renewals of leases of such property, for such consideration and on such terms and conditions as such persons may see fit, and to receive the consideration if any therefor; and, with or without consideration, to accept and grant acquittances, releases, discharges and deeds of main-levee in whole or in part of any hypothec, privilege, mortgage or other security which the Bank may take or hold upon any property, real or personal, movable or immovable, and to make loans and advances with or without security; and to authorize any person or persons to do any one or more of the foregoing acts.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution enacted by the Board of Directors of the Bank of Montreal on the 28th day of May, 2014, and that the said resolution is in full force and effect and unamended at the date hereof.
Paul Bachand
Assistant Corporate Secretary
DATED this 11th day of June, 2015.
Bank of Montreal
Board of Directors
Jan Babiak
Sophie Brochu
George A. Cope
William A. Dovvne
Christine A. Edwards
Martin S. Eichenbaum
Ronald H. Fanner
Eric R. La Flcche
Lorraine Mitchelmore
Philip S. Orsino, O.C., F.C.A.
Dr. Martha C. Piper, O.C., O.B.C.
J. Robert S. Prichard, O.C., O.Ont.
Don M. Wilson III
Executive Officers
William A. Downe Jean-Michel Ares Christopher Begy
Dave Casper
Alex Dousmanis-Curtis Simon Fish Thomas Flynn Cameron Fowler Giiles Ouellette Surjit Rajpal Richard Rudderham Connie Stefankiewicz Franklin J. Techar Darryl White
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Technology and Operations Officer
U.S. Country Head and Chief Executive Officer, BMO
Financial Corp.
President & Chief Executive Officer, BMO Harris Bank N.A.
& Group. Head, Commercial Banking
Group Head, U.S. Retail and Business Banking
General Counsel
Chief Financial Officer
Group Head, Canadian P&C Banking
Group Head, BMO Wealth Management
Chief Risk Officer
Chief Human Resources Officer
Chief Marketing Officer, BMO Financial Group
Chief Operating Officer
Group. Head, BMO Capital Markets
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I -- GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name of tlie Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: North South Capital LLC
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is: L [yfc the Applicant OR
2. [] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name ofthe
Applicant in which ihe Disclosing Party holds an interest: _
OR
3. [ ] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name ofthe entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
B. Business address of the Disclosing Party: 200 w, Adams Suite 2230. Chicago.IL 6Q606
Telephone: 312-445-5401 Fax: 312-445-5420 Email: iott@northsouthcap.cQm
Name of contact person: j3ne ott
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):,
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") lo which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of properly, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Finance Department
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification ii m and Contract ii
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II -- DISCLOSURE OK OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
1. Indicate me nature ofthe Disclosing Party:
[ j Person [:
[ J Publicly registered business corporation [
| ] Privately held business corporation [
[ ] Sole proprietorship I
\ ] General partnership (
[xj Limited liability company [ ] Limited liability partnership [ 1 Joint venture [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
( J Limited partnership
(Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Olher (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable:
Illinois
3, For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has Ihe organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
f ] Yes
FJ. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which arc legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
Tf the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management of ihe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf
Name Title
Jane Ott ^ President
Christopher O'Dortnell Executive VP
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture.
Page 2 of 13
[merest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, slate "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ('"Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
Jana Ott 200 W. Adams Suite 2230. Chicago IL 60606
Chris O'Dannell 200 W. Adams Suite 2230, Chicago. IL 60606 49%
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, wilh any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
t ] Yes No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) ofsuch City elected official(s) and describe such rclationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Parly roust disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Parly has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature ofthe relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party musl either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Tees (indicate_whether
Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid orjestimaledJ)NOTE:
lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate^oT1' ^ โข k^O>t^r not an acceptable response.
c(v; co-p x L Underwriters Counsel 4 7iT, #00
(Add sheets if necessary)
[ ] Check here ifthe Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance wilh their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes No [ ] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of die
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Party ands ifthe Disclosing Parly is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of (his EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or tocal unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS. been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection wilh: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, stale or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or stale antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; (heft; forgery: bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for. or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental enlity (federal, state or local) with committing any ofthe offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date .of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; arid
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3. A and 5 concern;
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or enlity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization ofa business enlity following the ineligibility ofa business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially (he same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, ihe term Affiliated Enlity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by il, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or enlity;
- any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any Other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization ofa responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Emily (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of cither the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during (he five years before the dale (his EDS is signed, or. with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date ofsuch Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted lo bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee ofthe City, the State of Illinois, or any agency ofthe federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in thai officer's or employee's official capacity:
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission ofsuch conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct: or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of stale or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (I) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any stale or ofthe United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Parry nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security ofthe U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, ihe Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) ofthe Municipal Code.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any ofthe above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
N/A
Page 6 of 13
If the letters "NA." the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, il will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of (he Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a
complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-
month period preceding the execution date of (his EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official,
ofthe City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). N/A
9. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party lias given ot caused io be given, at any lime- during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS. to an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago, For purposes of this statement, a '"gift" docs not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or (o the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicale with ''N/A" or '"none"). As to any gtfl listed below, please also list (he name ofthe City recipient.
N/A
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Parry certifies thai the Disclosing Party (check one)
|x] is [ J is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges;
"Wc arc not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory-lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory fender may result in ihe loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because il or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b).of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (aiiach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
ifthc letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified lo the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-1 56 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 ofthe Municipal Code: Does any official or employee ofthe City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[J Yes W No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D. 1 proceed io Items D.2. and D.3. If you cheeked ,rNo" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property (hat (i) belongs io the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to (he City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[JYes [x|No
Ifyou checked "Yes" Lo Item D.I., provide.the names and business addresses ofthe Cily officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest;
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4, The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check, either 1. or 2, below. If (he Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure lo
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable hy the City.
x 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing I'arty has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Parly and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery' era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting, the search in step I above, the
Disclosing Parly has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE. If the Matler is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of ibis Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations ofthe City arc not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party wilh respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or ifthe letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed (hat the Disclosing Party means thai NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of (he Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity (o influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by-applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Parly will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which (here occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statement and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that cither: (i) il is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986: or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will no( engage in "Lobbying Activities".
Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Parly musl obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and tlie Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications forthe duration ofthe Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthe Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicanl and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[]Ycs []No If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director ofthe Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, orthe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
t]Yes
Have you participated in any previous coiKraols or subcontraels subject to the equal opportunity clause?
( ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Paae K)of 13
SECTION VII -- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other Cily action, and arc material inducements to tlie City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands thai it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicaRO.org.'Tยฃ(hies , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500. Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Parly musl comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which i( is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining lo allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions wiih the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award lo the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make (his document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to (his EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kepi current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up lo the time the City takes action on the Mailer. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility mus( be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 ofthe Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 1 1 of 13
I j
I
i
j
F. 1. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee. tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to. all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 Ifthc Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 Ifthc Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to ihose in F. 1. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor thai does not provide such certifications or that ihe Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as lo any of the items in F. I., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to Ihis EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (I) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants thai all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
North South Capital LLC
(Print or type name of Disclosing Party)
Jane Ott
(Print or type name of person signing)
(Print or lype title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date) v>C(rvX j *b .
at CVOK County, T [ h r>Q^ (state),
X/r^~Notary Public.
Commission expires: ffi/ J%/ โข
OFFICIAL SEAL
ANGELINA M VANDERMOLEN NOURY PUBUC-STATE OF aiNOtS
my commission BPM&oaasflfi
Page 1.2 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) (he Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015. the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any 'Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe dale ihis EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the cily clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic-partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law. son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (I) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B. La., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Docs the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party-" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected cily official or department head?
[ ] Yes I No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title ofsuch person, (2) the name of the legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title ofthe elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (41 the precise nature of such familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
(TTY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/TROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identi fied as a
building code scofllaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal
Code?
[ JYes fxlNo
2, Ifthe Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on. any exchange, is any officer or director of
tlie Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section
2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ]Ycs [ JNo [A] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name ofthe person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address ofthe building or buildings It) which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND TH AT THE REPRESENTATIONS M ADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
j
I
i
I
AFFIDAVIT
DEBT OBLIGATION AND BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS
"Name of Reporting Firm: North South Capital
Description of Matter: GO transaction
Role of Reporting Firm: Co-Manager
Tin's affidavit is submitted in conjunction with (check one):
_x a City of Chicago debt obligation transaction (Municipal Code Section 2-154-017)
brokerage services for the City Treasurer (Municipal Code Section 2-154-018)
Fill out below (and attach additional sheets using the same formal if necessary), the following information for each person in the Reporting Firm who will directly provide professional services to the City in connection with the Matter described above: the individual's position in the Reporting Firm and the role he or she will fill in the Matter, gender, and race or ethnicity, individuals' names need not be disclosed.
Individual # Position and Role Gender Racc/Ethnicity
Jane Ott President/ Lead on transaction F White
Ree Grossman Wealth Manager/Retail sales F White
Aaron Vastl Wealth Manager/Retail sales M White
Ken Alexa Wealth Manager/Retail Sales M White
Tom Schmitz Wealth Manager/Retail Sales M White
(If needed, please use additional sheets to identify additional personnel.)
By signing below, 1 represent under penally of perjury that: (1) I am authorized to act on behalf ofthe Reporting Firm, and (2) the infonnation in this Affidavit and associated attachment arc true, complete, and correct.
___z
By signing below, 1 understand and acknowledge, on behalf of the Rcportmg.Firiii, that failure to accurately and completely supply the information requested herein may result in a declaration of ineligibility to participate in future Matters for the City of Chicago.
Printed Name: Janc On
Signature: ^3f_,ty{^lJL_ J
Title: Presidem__
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name ofthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, LLC
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[x] the Applicant
OR
[ ] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest:
OR
3. [ ] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name ofthe entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
B. Business address of the Disclosing Party: 500 West Jefferson St., Ste. 700
Louisville, KY 40202
Telephone: 502.588.8664 Fax: 502.588.8470 Email: jrogers@hilliard.com
Name of contact person: James M. Rogers
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons is submitting this EDS in relation to providing underwriting services on the City of Chicago General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015:
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance (Comptroller's Office)
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
i
I
SECTION 11 - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
Person
Publicly registered business corporation
Privately held business corporation
Sole proprietorship
General partnership
Limited partnership
Trust
[*] Limited liability company
[ ] Limited liability partnership
[ ] Joint venture
[ ] Not-for-profit corporation
(Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[]Yes []No [ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: Kentucky
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[x] Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
Ifthe entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
James R. Allen. Chairman of the Board, CEO, President; John R. Bugh, Director, Executive Vice President;
Charles M. Grimelv, Director, Executive Vice President, CFO; Parry! K. Metzger, Director, Executive Vice President;
Carmella R. Miller, Director, Chief Administrative Officer, Executive Vice President; James M. Rogers, Director, COO, Executive
Vice President; Jaleigh J. White, Director, Executive Vice President
Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
I
I
I
i
I
i
interest of a member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest of a beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
500 w. Jefferson St., Ste. 700 Disclosing Party
HL Financial Services, LLC Louisville, KY 40202 J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons is owned 99.99823%
~~ by HL Financial Services, LLC (HLFS)
SECTION 111 -- BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Parly must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Mayer Brown LLP
Name (indicate whether Business retained or anticipated Address to be retained)
71 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606
Relationship lo Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
(subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
Underwriters' counsel $75,000 (est.)*
โขfees will also be allocated among
the other underwriters
(Add sheets if necessary)
[ ] Check here ifthe Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [ ] No p] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee ofthe City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article 1 supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Parly and, ifthe Disclosing Parly is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization ofa business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Enlity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted lo bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any slate or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to.bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission ofsuch conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any ofthe following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security ofthe U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any ofthe above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
None
Page 6 of 13
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees ofthe Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). None
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the Cily of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name ofthe City recipient. None
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[x] is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code.
Ifthc Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter
2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
None
Page 7 of 13
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee ofthe City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes [x] No
NOTE: If you checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. If you checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit ofthe City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.L, provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of
the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
x 2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
Please refer to the attachment for the firm's response.
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: Ifthe Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or ifthe letters "NA" or ifthe word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
I
I
I
i i
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy of the statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
If the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[JYes [JNo If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[JYes [JNo
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[JYes [JNo
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ J Yes [ J No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.orR/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
Ifthc City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all ofthe information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
i
i
i i
i
i
F.l. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parlies List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F.L, F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, LLC
(Print or type name of person signing)
Chief Operating Officer
(Print or type tirle of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date) \Jia^J> r2f)lST, at CVffbr$1M'\ County, faj^M (?7__3 (state).
_^ _^'_4:/~Notary Public.
Coinmission expires: C~Jlst//^ r~3-ยฃ.V^_V_>
Page 12 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B. 1 .a., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers ofthe Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [x]No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature of such familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
I
i
I
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [x ] No
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [x] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name ofthe person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address ofthe building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
i i
i j i
i
i i
Response to Section E.
The firm's records prior to 1937 were destroyed in a flood in that year. In preparation for Milliard's 150th anniversary celebration in 2004, extensive research was conducted on the history of the firm and its founders, including other government documents and public records, newspaper and other publications and interviews with family members of the original founders' families concerning their knowledge of these documents. Historical records discovered during that search indicate that Thomas Quigley, an individual founder of one of Hilliard Lyons' predecessor firms, owned 15 slaves at the time ofthe 1850 Federal census and six slaves at the time of the 1860 census. The names of these slaves are not listed in the census records. Quigley partnered with Henry Lyons to form the earliest known predecessor of Hilliard Lyons, Quigley and Lyons, from 1854 until 1862. Lyons then left the partnership to start his own firm, Henry J. Lyons which, after several more mergers, became J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons. The individual who performed the research died in October, 2012. His research on the firm is in the custody ofthe historical records library at The University of Louisville. Other historical records researched are in the collection of the Filson Historical Society in Louisville, Kentucky.
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: HL Financial Services, LLC
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
[x] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest: jj.b. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, LLC
OR
3. [] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
B. Business address of the Disclosing Party: 500 West Jefferson St., Ste. 700
Louisville, KY 40202
Telephone: 502.588.8604 Fax: 502.588.1198 Email: cgrimley@hilliard.com
Name of contact person: Charles Grimley, Executive VP, CFO, Treasurer
Federal Employer Identification No. (ifyou have one):.
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, LLC, the applicant, is submitting this EDS in relation to providing underwriting services on the City of Chicago General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015.
Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance (Comptroller's Office)
Ifthe Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY 1. Indicate the nature of the Disclosing Party:
Person [x]
Publicly registered business corporation [ ]
Privately held business corporation [ ]
Sole proprietorship [ ]
General partnership (Is
Limited partnership
Trust [ ]
Limited liability company Limited liability partnership Joint venture
Not-for-profit corporation
the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[JYes []No Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: Kentucky
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ ] Yes P] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management of the Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
Please refer to attachment A.
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Disclosing Party. Examples ofsuch an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
j
|1010|i
I
i
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest of a beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
700 Church Street Disclosing Party
Houchens Industries, Inc. Bowling Green, KY 42101 62%
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [x] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature ofthe relationship, and the total amount ofthe fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
[x] Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V -- CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [ ] No ยฃ<] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[JYes []No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee ofthe City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
i
I
I
!
The Disclosing Party and, if the Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted ofa criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section I V, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization ofa business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization ofa responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Parly, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or ofthe United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ofthe U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
None
Page 6 of 13
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees ofthe Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). None
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name ofthe City recipient. None
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[x] is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter
2-32 ofthe Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
None
Page 7 of 13
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee ofthe City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes [x] No
NOTE: If you checked "Yes" to Item D.L, proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.L, proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.L, provide the names and business addresses ofthe City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
X 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of
the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI ~ CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matler: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or ifthe letters "NA" or ifthe word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) il is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration ofthe Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthe Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[]Yes []No If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Coinmission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[]Yes []No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII โ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and arc material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. Ifthe Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F.l. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F. 1. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent of the City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: Ifthe Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F.l., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as ofthe date furnished to the City.
HL Financial Services, LLC
(Print or type name of Disclosing Party)
By: C_L_
(Sign here)
Charles Grimley (Print or type name of person signing)
Executive VP, CFO, Treasurer (Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date) 3lAY\P- ^ 3-0 _> at <^JfcT^V\ County, j^Mi-tJU^ (state).
-j c^^^^T^joh Notary Public.
Commission expires:
Page 12 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Parly" means (1) all executive officers ofthe Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B. La., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners ofthe Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members ofthe Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Parly is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers ofthe Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [x]No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title ofthe elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [x ] No
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of the person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address of the building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
Attachment A. Managers
Pete Mahurin, Chairman & Manager James R. Allen, President & Manager James P. Gibson, Manager Spencer Coates, Secretary & Manager
Officers
Charles M. Grim ley, Executive VP, CFO, Treasurer
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: Houchens Industries, Inc.
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
[X] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest: JJ.b. Hilliard, w.l. Lyons, llc
OR
3. [] a legal entity with a right of control (sec Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
B. Business address of the Disclosing Party: 700 Church Street
Bowling Green, KY 42101
Telephone: 270.780.2865 Fax: 270.780.2910 Email: scoates@houchensindustries.com
Name of contact person: Spencer A. Coates
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):'
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking'(referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, LLC, the applicant, is submitting this EDS in relation to providing underwriting services on the City of Chicago General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015.
Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance (Comptroller's Office)
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract it
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
Indicate the nature of the Disclosing Party:
Person [ ] Limited liability company
Publicly registered business corporation [ ] Limited liability partnership
Privately held business corporation [ ] Joint venture
Sole proprietorship [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
General partnership (Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
Limited partnership [ ] Yes [ ] No
Trust [x] Other (please specify)
S Corporation
For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: Kentucky
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ ] Yes pq No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors ofthe entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management of the Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title Please refer to attachment A.
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest of a member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
Houchens Industries, Inc. 700 Church Street 100%*
tmployee Stock Uwnersnip I rust Bowltrig Gieen, KY 42101
* No individual (through the Houchens Industries, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Trust) owns over 7.5%.
SECTION III -- BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [x] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
[x] Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [X] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee ofthe City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Party and, if the Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any ofthe offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
I
I
I
i
I i
i
i i
i
i
i
i
i i
i
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity of a Contractor during the five years before the date ofsuch Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee ofthe City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or ofthe United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any ofthe following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
N/A
Page 6 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
N/A
9. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient.
N/A
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[ ] is [x] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
Ifthe Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
" We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
N/A
Page 7 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes [x] No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.L, proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit ofthe City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.l., provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature of such interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
X 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations ofthe City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "NA" or ifthe word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy of the statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
If the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
I I
I
I
I
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. Ifthe Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
I i
I
j
i
i
F.l. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any ofthe items in F.l., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as ofthe date furnished to the City.
Houchens Industries, Inc.
(Print or type name of Disclosing Party)
(Sign here)
.a, (Ufa
(Print or type name of person signing)
t.s \'ci _rc/L
(Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date) _
at UiVffcn County, \CcM\jna^ (state).
dune Yto<\ Notary Public.
Commission expires: ~ l*-> โ f*~5T" โข
Page 12 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as of the date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any ofthe following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B.La., ifthe Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners ofthe Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary ofa legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title ofsuch person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature of such familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is tlie Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [x ] No
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [x] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of the person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address ofthe building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
Attachment A
Jimmie Gipson, Chairman
Spencer Coates, President
Jimmie Gipson, Chief Executive Officer
Dion Houchins, Executive Vice President
Jimmy Nichols, Vice President of Retail Operations
Mike Givens, Secretary
J. Gordon Minter, Treasurer
Ed Jerger, Vice President
Cecil Martin, Vice President of Business Development Don Sidwell, Vice President of Save-A-Lot Operations David Burnett, Vice President of Save-A-Lot Operations Bruce Goodman, Vice President of Save-A-Lot Operations John Mudd, Vice President Save-A-Lot Produce Procurement J. Gordon Minter, Vice President of Finance J. Gordon Minter, Chief Financial Officer Noel Hunt, Assistant Secretary Dion Houchins, Assistant Secretary J. Gordon Minter, Assistant Secretary
Jimmie Gipson, Director Mike Givens, Director Pete Mahurin, Director Sarah Glenn Grise, Director Noel Hunt, Director Chester Gregory, Director David Burnett, Director Spencer Coates, Director Dion Houchins, Director
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I -- GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name ofthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: Houchens Industries, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership.Trust
Check ONE of the following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
[*] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest: JJ.b. Hilliard, w.l Lyons, llc
OR
3. [] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
B. Business address ofthe Disclosing Party: 700 church street
Bowling Green, KY 42101
Telephone: 270.780.2808 Fax: 270.780.2893 Email: igipson@houchensindustries.com
Name of contact person: Jimmie Gipson
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, LLC, the applicant, is submitting this EDS in relation to providing underwriting services on the City of Chicago General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015.
Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance (Comptroller's Office)
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II -- DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY 1. Indicate the nature of the Disclosing Party:
Person [ ]
Publicly registered business corporation [ ]
Privately held business corporation [ ]
Sole proprietorship [ ]
General partnership (Is
Limited partnership
Trust [ ]
Limited liability company Limited liability partnership Joint venture
Not-for-profit corporation
the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: Kentucky
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ ] Yes pq No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management of the Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title Jimmie Gipson, Trustee
Noel Hunt, Trustee
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary of a trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 ofthe Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
None
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [x] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) ofsuch City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature ofthe relationship, and the total amount ofthe fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
[x] Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [X] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), ifthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
i
I
i
I
i
I I
I
The Disclosing Party and, ifthe Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B. 1. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
โข any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity of a Contractor during the five years before the date ofsuch Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 LLCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any ofthe following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any ofthe above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
N/A
Page 6 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
N/A
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient.
N/A
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[ ] is [x] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
N/A
Page 7 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 ofthe Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes [x] No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.L, proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit ofthe City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.L, provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature of such interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
X 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI -- CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: Ifthe Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. Ifthe Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations ofthe City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
i
!
|
i
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
If the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII -- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 ofthe Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
I
!
i
i
F.l. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its A ffiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F.l., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
Houchens Industries, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Trust
(Print or type name of Disclosing Party)
(Print or type name of person signing) (Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date)
at Xtl(Lrri'\ County, \ Notary Public.
nnmission expires: H'l^-l^ ยฆ
Page 12 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICI ALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as of the date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Parmer thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B. La., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary ofa legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [x]No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name of the legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [x ] No
lf the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [x] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of the person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address ofthe building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
AFFIDAVIT
DEBT OBLIGATION AND BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS
Name of Reporting Firm: J.B.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, LLC
Description of Matter: City of Chicago General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
Role of Reporting Firm: Co-managing underwriter
This affidavit is submitted in conjunction with (check one):
X a City of Chicago debt obligation transaction (Municipal Code Section 2-154-017)
brokerage services for the City Treasurer (Municipal Code Section 2-154-018)
Fill out below (and attach additional sheets using the same format, if necessary), the following information for each person in the Reporting Firm who will directly provide professional services to the City in connection with the Matter described above: the individual's position in the Reporting Firm and the role he or she will fill in the Matter, gender, and race or ethnicity. Individuals' names need not be disclosed.
Individual # Position and Role Gender Race/Ethnicity |109|Senior Managing Director Municipal Securities Group - Lead Banker M F Caucasian |109|Managing Director - Lead Banker M F Asian |109|S.V.P., Chief Compliance Officer - Compliance Oversight M F African American |109|S.V.P., Head of Underwriting - Lead Underwriter M F Caucasian |109|V.P., Head of Quantitative Services - Lead Structuring Banker |m| f Caucasian |109|V.P., Public Finance - Day-to-day support m[fJ Caucasian
By signing below, I represent under penalty of perjury that: (1) I am authorized to act on behalf of the Reporting Firm, and (2) the information in this Affidavit and associated attachment are true, complete, and correct.
By signing below, I understand and acknowledge, on behalf of the Reporting Firm, that failure to accurately and completely supply the information requested herein may result in a declaration of ineligibility to participate in future Matters for the City of Chicago.
Printed Name: Tariq Malhance
Signature: _
Title: Managing Director
Date: June 8. 2015
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I -- GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: Estrada Hinojosa & Company, Inc.,
Check ONE of the following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[X] the Applicant
OR
[ ] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest:
OR
3. [] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
Business address of the Disclosing Party: 161 North Clark St., Suite 4700, Chicago, IL 60601
1717 Main St., Suite 4700, Dallas, TX 75201
312 523.2086 312.277.7499 fegrillo@ehmuni.com
Telephone: 214.658.1670 Fax: 214.658.1671 Email: rae@ehmuni.com
Name of contact person: Fernando Grillo & Robert A. Estrada
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
ยฆ G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Finance
Ifthe Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # N/A ; and Contract # N/A
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY 1. Indicate the nature ofthe Disclosing Party:
[ ] Person [ ]
[ ] Publicly registered business corporation [ ]
Privately held business corporation [ ]
[ ] Sole proprietorship [ ]
[ ] General partnership (Is
[ ] Limited partnership
?'Trust []
Limited liability company
Limited liability partnership
Joint venture
Not-for-profit corporation
the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: Texas
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[JfYes []No []N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited Uability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management of the Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
Noe Hinojosa, Jr. President & CEO
Robert A. Estrada Chairman & Senior Managing Director
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest of a beneficiary of a trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 ofthe Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
Noe Hinojosa, Jr. 1717 Main St. Ste. 4700, Dallas, Tx. 75201 50.31%
Robert A. Estrada 1717 Main St., Ste. 4700. Dallas, Tx. 75201 20.02%
Donald J. Gonzales 100 W. Houston St.,Ste. 1400, San Antonio, Tx . 78205 10%
SECTION III โ BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes W No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV -- DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature ofthe relationship, and the total amount ofthe fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (I) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
Underwriters Counsel - Mayer Brown $75,000 estimated
(Add sheets if necessary)
[ ] Check here ifthe Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V -- CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes JXDNo [ ] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee ofthe City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Party and, ifthc Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are nol presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted ofa criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribe^; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any ofthe offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in. subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibifity of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
โข any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission ofsuch conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or ofthe United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any ofthe following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ofthe U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security ofthe U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: die Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) ofthe Municipal Code.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any ofthe above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
Page 6 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). N/A
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name ofthe City recipient. __
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[>ยง is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code.
Ifthe Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate ofa predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes M No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.L, proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.L, provide the names and business addresses ofthe City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. Ifthe Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
PageS of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
X 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: Ifthe Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "N A" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A. I. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Parly will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
If the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Elave you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director ofthe Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it musl comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
Ifthe City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy lo make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all ofthe information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of infonnation contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 ofthe Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F.l. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is tlie Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F.L, F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as ofthe date furnished to the City.
Estrada Hinojosa & Company, Inc.
(Print or type name of Disclosing Party) By:.
(Sign here) Robert A Estrada
(Print or type name of person signing) Chairman & Senior Managing Director (Print or type title of person signing)
*\U*H*U. โข "โโ wmmmm_
$^&m ,BEL'NDA GARZA ยฆ = W; I k arY ublic' S,me of Texas sv5Ai^ y Comm'ssion Expires - November 10. 2015
Signed and sworn to before me on (date) \ j\Jf\-8^- 2-0 jS at PaAwS County, Tj^CdS (state).
^)}Im/A^ (MvK. Notary Public.
Commission expires:_
Page 12 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as of the date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, tlie city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any ofthe following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section HB. La., ifthe Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary ofa legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title ofsuch person, (2) the name of the legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title ofthe elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch farnilial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [x]No
Ifthe Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ XJ Not Applicable
3. If yes lo (I) or (2) above, please identify below the name of the person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address of the building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FELLING OUT THIS APPENDED B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
AFFIDAVIT
DEBT OBLIGATION AND BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS
Name of Reporting Firm: Estrada Hinojosa & Company, Inc. Description of Matter; General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015 Role of Reporting Firm: Co-Manager This affidavit is submitted in conjunction with (check one):
X aCity of Chicago debt obligation transaction (Municipal Code Section 2-154-017)
brokerage services for the City Treasurer (Municipal Code Section 2-154-018)
Fill out below (and attach additional sheets using the same format, if necessary), the following information for each person in the Reporting Firm who will directly provide professional services to the Cily in connection with the Matter described above: the individual's position in the Reporting Firm and the role lie or she will fill in the Matter, gender, and race or ethnicity. Individuals' names need not be disclosed.
Individual tt Position and Role Gender Race/Ethnicity
2513906 Executive Vice President/Lead Banker ($) F Hispanic
2038938 Senior Managing Director/Project Supervision (m^ f Hispanic
6024159 Assistant Vice President/Quantitative Support Hispanic
865432 Senior Managing Director/Trading (m} f White
1492508 Senior Vice President/Trading Mยฉ White
(If needed, please use additional sheets to identify additional personnel.)
By signing below, I represent under penalty of perjury that: (I) I am authorized to act on behalf of the Reporting Finn, and (2) the information in this Affidavit and associated attachment are true, complete, and correct.
By signing below, I understand and acknowledge, on behalf of the Reporting Firm, that failure to accurately and completely supply the information requested herein may result in a declaration of ineligibility to participate in future Matters for the City of Chicago.
Printed Name: Robert A. Estrada
Signature:
Title: Senior Managing Director & CCO
Date: June 8. 2015
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
Legal name of the Disclosing Parly submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable:
Check ONE of the following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
|y/ a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name ofthe
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest: (>fo rCc k- uiu.w ^Ok^w?;-^
0R|99|"|99|: V [ ] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.L) Stale the legal name ofthe entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
Business address of the Disclosing Party: V^oqvv S ^ Sv^'f^ SC>C
Telephone; ^\13"LPM~-U0l3 Eax: ^Hs'-Qfra-Snfo Email: \pjc> r^Sfc^v p CjiCOUt
Name of contact person:
Federal Employer Identification No. (ifyou have one): _
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? F'^^VaC-C
Ifthe Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II -- DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
[ ] Person
[ ] Publicly registered business corporation
[yflPrivately held business corporation
[ ] Sole proprietorship
[ ] General partnership
[ ] Limited partnership
[ ] Trust
[ ] Limited liability company
[ ] Limited liability partnership
[ ] Joint venture
[ ] Not-for-profit corporation
(Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable:
3. For legal entities not organized in the Slate of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ ] Yes [Jfiio [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors ofthe entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or olher similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
Ifthe entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership or joint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management of the Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
^o-a^tV^ ยฃ . feciM.^ 'PrcbCcUwr ยฃ {Kret-r*"/~
(KK\W(|Ulv'^ ^ec*cTt^y V)v'^ccro <
-reccc>r
ftcyW-rT k. 'Q4rcxA DWffc.cc- <-
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or enlity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Disclosing Party. Examples ofsuch an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest of a member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar enlity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 ofthe Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
3 ov\oyU^VA h,, &caaW\ 9D, 2^7^
tj
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes
If yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such rclationship(s):
SECTION IV ~ DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Parly is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
[v/check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V -- CERTIFICATIONS
A. COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Parly been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[v] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[]Yes [JNo
B. FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee ofthe City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Party and, ifthe Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
arc not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted ofa criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, stale or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization ofa business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Enlity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of cither the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Enlity, or an Affiliated Enlity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency ofthe federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ofthe U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) ofthe Municipal Code.
Ifthc Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any ofthe above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
Page 6 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees ofthe Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
rO/rr
9. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any lime during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" docs not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient.
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[^fis [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss ofthe privilege of doing business with the City."
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
Ifthc letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Docs any official or employee ofthe City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[]Ycs [vfNo
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. If you checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit ofthe City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [^No
lf you checked "Yes" to Item D.l., provide the names and business addresses ofthe City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
A. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check cither 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment lo this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the Cily in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
V 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Parly and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage lo or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies thai, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Parly verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: Ifthe Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. Ifthe Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations ofthe City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(lf no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A. 1. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Parly will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration ofthe Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthe Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[]Yes []No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director ofthe Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Parly understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, JL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all ofthe information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. Ifthe Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 ofthe Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
I'M. The Disclosing Parly is nol delinquent in Ihe payment of any lax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Parly or ils Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, lax or other charge owed lo the Cily. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 Ifthc Disclosing Patty is the Applicanl, the Disclosing Parly and ils Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. B P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 Ifthc Disclosing Parly is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or lo be hired in connection wilh the Matter certifications equal in form and substance lo those in IM. and F.2. above and will nol, without the prior written consent ofthe Cily, use any such contractor/subcontractor lhat docs not provide such certifications or lhat the Disclosing Parly has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: Ifthc Disclosing Party cannot certify as lo any of the items in IM., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached lo this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized lo execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Parly, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) arc Hue, accurate and complete as ofthe date furnished to the Cily.
'Print nrlvnw nnni/1 nf I^icrIncinnr Pfu-I\A
(Print ortypยซ name of Disclosing Party)
(Print or type name of person signing)
(Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn lo before nic on (date) Qi-inยฃ. Sy %Q \ t? at JacK-Sot-v- County, Missouri (stale).
Notary Public.
Commission expires:
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the cily clerk, the cily treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any ofthe following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B. 1 .a., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers ofthe Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name of the legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature of such familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is lo be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [^No
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of Ihe Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [J] No [ ] Not Applicable
If yes to (I) or (2) above, please identify below the name ofthe person or legal entity identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address ofthe building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
I
I
I i
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable:
^ro^g U v6Check ONE of the following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
\/f the Applicant
OR
[ ] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicanl. State the legal name ofthe
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest:
OR
3. [ ] a legal entity wilh a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
B. Business address of the Disclosing Party: \ r\JNV.ft.Sc^W St Su^rC \~fยฃS
CWl0v(-|O ; X\ CoOtgQ-?-
Telephone: ?>Ya-UMKU>U Fax: 3n^Mh3d>a-S" Email: ^TTC(P^UVxav-| Aj t yVcv-CT0
E. Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one): _
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of properly, if applicable):
&o^t&> Scvics ZfclS~
Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? h^^CC
Ifthc Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract 11
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
1. Indicate the nature of the Disclosing Party:
[ ] Person [ ] Limited liability company
[] Publicly registered business corporation [] Limited liability partnership
[^Privately held business corporation [ ] Joint venture
[ ] Sole proprietorship [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
[ ] General partnership (Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Limited partnership [ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Trust [ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable:
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[vfYes []No []N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors ofthe entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there arc no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
i m i A .1 /โข> fl /
fticW^c {)0rovA ^CIv-^tv^i^a y^vWcw^l rA'^iM'u/^
Rx?i cr o :
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture.
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity, lf none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 ofthe Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
^ Disclosing Party
GctyriiC- \a. &iAavy\ nt^Mv\t|*>t ยฃv^_. /OOfo
^$0 ) ยฃr Suite ยฃ^
Vv&saSc^ Gtm ,r*)o fyt^fr
SECTION III -- BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-1 56 of the Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
If yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature ofthe relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (I) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether retained or anticipated to be retained)
Business Address
(subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, etc.)
paid or estimated.) NOTE: "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is not an acceptable response.
71 ยฃ,WiW0
(Add sheets if necessary)
[ ] Check here ifthe Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
A. COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes
B. FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
I. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged wilh, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Parly and, ifthc Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted ofa criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, slate or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have nol, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parlies");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization ofa business entity following the ineligibility ofa business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
โข any responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity of a Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission ofsuch conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing-Party is unable to certify to any ofthe above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
Page 6 of 13
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
l^a :
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused lo be given, at any lime during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name ofthe City recipient.
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION 1. The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
2. If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate ofa predatory lender may result in the loss ofthe privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, il will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that arc defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 ofthe Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter? /
[ ] Yes M'ilo
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes
3. If you checked "Yes" to Item D.l., provide the names and business addresses ofthe City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature of such interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. Ifthe Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
__v_l. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage lo or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. Ifthe Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or ifthe letters "NA" or ifthe word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or enlity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with (he award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Parly must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
lf the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[]Yes []No
If you checked "No" to question I. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII -- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the Cily in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that il musl comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection wilh which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matler and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all ofthe information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: Wilh respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F. 1. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F.l., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
(Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date) ot3uy>C1 2-MS ,
Page 12 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as of the date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any cily department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B. La., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, if tlie Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Parly or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ]Ycs [v^No
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant lo Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code? .
[ ] Yes [ . No [/} Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name ofthe person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address of the building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OFTHE ASSOCIATED EDS.
AFFIDAVIT
DEBT OBLIGATION AND BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS
Name of Reporting Firm: George K. Baum &. Company
Description of Matter: General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
Role of Reporting Firm: Co-Manager
This affidavit is submitted in conjunction with (check one):
X a City of Chicago debt obligation transaction (Municipal Code Section 2-154-017)
brokerage services for the City Treasurer (Municipal Code Section 2-154-018)
Fill out below (and attach additional sheets using the same format, if necessary), the following information for each person in the Reporting Firm who will directly provide professional services to the City in connection with the Matter described above: the individual's position in the Reporting Firm and the role he or she will fill in the Matter, gender, and race or ethnicity. Individuals' names need not be disclosed.
Position and Role
EVP/ Investment Banker
SVP/ Investment Banker
SVP/ Underwriter
SVP/ Underwriter
M F
(If needed, please use additional sheets to identify additional personnel.)
By signing below, I represent under penalty of perjury that: (1) I am authorized to act on behalf of the Reporting Firm, and (2) the information in this Affidavit and associated attachment are true, complete, and correct.
By signing below, I understand and acknowledge, on behalf of the Reporting Firm, that failure to accurately and completely supply the information requested herein may result in a declaration of ineligibility to participate in future Matters for the City of Chicago.
Printed NamsAAIbert Aยซ Beumenot Signature: \ /OkkxAl A yQ^^A^
Title: Senior Vice President
Dale: June 10, 2015
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name ofthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Check ONE of the following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[X] the Applicant
OR
[] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest:
OR
3. [] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
B. Business address of the Disclosing Party: 390 Greenwich Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (312 ) 876-3564 Fax: (312) 876-3551 Email:samantha . costanzo@citi . com
Name of contact person: Samantha Costanzo
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Finance Department
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract it
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II -- DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
[ ] Person
[ ] Publicly registered business corporation
|x] Privately held business corporation
[ ] Sole proprietorship
[ ] General partnership
[ ] Limited partnership
[ ] Trust
[ ] Limited liability company [ ] Limited liability partnership [ ] Joint venture [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
(Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: New York
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[X] Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
See Attachment A for a list of Citigroup Global Market Inc. Officers
and Directors.
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Disclosing Party. Examples ofsuch an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest of a member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest of a beneficiary of a trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
See Attachment B for a list of direct and indirect owners of
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
SECTION III -- BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) ofsuch City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Mayer Brown
Name (indicate whether Business retained or anticipated Address to be retained)
71 S. Wacker Drive
Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
(subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
Counsel to the Underwriter Total anticipated fee of $75,000
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(Add sheets if necessary)
[ ] Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
A. COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [X ] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes
B. FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies lo the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Party and, ifthe Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
arc not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted ofa criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any ofthe offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization ofa responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Parly, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee ofthe City, the State of Illinois, or any agency ofthe federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or ofthe United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security ofthe U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
See Attachment C in support of the above.
Page 6 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). None
9. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name ofthe City recipient. None
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
|X] is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss ofthe privilege of doing business with the City."
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in
Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter
2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Not Applicable
Page 7 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that arc defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes [XJ No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. Ifthe Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the Cily in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
x 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI -- CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: Ifthe Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary): None
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or ifthe letters "NA" or ifthe word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy of the statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthe Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
IX] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
|X] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director ofthe Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[X] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[X] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. Ifthe Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F. 1. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 Jf the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F. 1. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent of the City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any ofthe items in F. 1., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as ofthe date furnished to the City.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (Print or type name of Disclosing Party)
(Sign here) v
Samantha Costanzo
(Print or type name of person signing)
Managing Director (Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date)
at (Coo R County, XCL'i po^ (state).
I , I 6 NO^Pi^-State
5 / 6 / ^C3 17 \ ^6^^m
Notary Public. J 'o^ktf"*'''
S ;โ / / / & Notary Pubte - State c* HQrolยซ >
Commission expires:
Page 12 of 13
I
I
I
i i I
i
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any ofthe following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B. La., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [X]No
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [ ]No [X] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name ofthe person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address of the building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
ATTACHMENTS FOR CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.
ATTACHMENT A - LIST OF DIRECTORS AND PRINCIPALS
James A. Forese Director, Chairman, President and CEO
Raymond J. McGuire Director
William J. Mills Director
Cliff Verron Chief Financial Officer
Peter A. Mozer Treasurer
Scott L. Flood Secretary and Co-General Counsel
Adam Meshel Co-General Counsel
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
ATTACHMENTS FOR CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.
ATTACHMENT B - DIRECT AND INDIRECT OWNERS OF CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.
Entity Owner and Percentage of Interest Percentage of Interest Owner's Business Address
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. A wholly-owned subsidiary of Citigroup Financial Products Inc. Direct 100% 390 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10013
Citigroup Financial Products Inc. A wholly-owned subsidiary of Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. Indirect 100% 390 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10013
Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. A wholly-owned subsidiary Citigroup Inc. Indirect 100% 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10043
Citigroup Inc. Citigroup is a publicly traded organization (NYSE:C) Indirect 100% -
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
ATTACHMENTS FOR CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.
ATTACHMENT C - FURTHER CERTIFICATION
In the ordinary course of business, Citigroup Inc. ("Citi"), which holds an indirect interest in the Applicant, and its subsidiaries are defendants or co-defendants in various litigation matters incidental to and typical of the broad range of businesses in which they are engaged. For example, typical actions in broker-dealer subsidiaries are civil suits, arbitration proceedings, and other matters related to activities occurring in the normal course of business as a broker and dealer in securities, as an underwriter of securities, as an investment banker or otherwise. From time to time Citi, and certain affiliated entities, are the subjects of inquiries and investigations conducted by federal or state regulatory agencies. Citi and its affiliated entities routinely cooperate with such investigations.
To the best of our knowledge, information and belief, we are not aware of any threatened or pending proceedings, investigations or litigation concerning Citi or its subsidiaries, which could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on Citi's ability to perform the services contemplated by the Economic Disclosure Form.
Citi is a public company and as such files periodic and current reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as required by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that include current descriptions of material regulatory proceedings, investigations and litigation. Copies of Citi's periodic reports are on file with the SEC, which can be located at the SEC's website (www.sec.gov ).
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORM ATION
A. Legal name ofthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: Citigroup Inc.
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
[X] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest: Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
OR
3. [] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
B. Business address of the Disclosing Party: 3 99 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10_043
Telephone: (312) 876-3564 Fax: (312) 876-3551 Email: samantha . costanzo@citi . com
Name of contact person: Samantha Costanzo
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Finance Department
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY 1. Indicate the nature ofthe Disclosing Party:
[ ] Person [ ]
[X] Publicly registered business corporation [ ]
[ ] Privately held business corporation [ ]
[ ] Sole proprietorship [ ]
[ ] General partnership (Is
[ ] Limited partnership
[ ] Trust [ ]
Limited liability company Limited liability partnership Joint venture
Not-for-profit corporation
the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: Delaware
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ ] Yes [X] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors ofthe entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
See Attachment A for a list of Citigroup Inc. Officers and Directors.
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Disclosing Party. Examples ofsuch an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
|1010|
I
I
I
interest of a member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 ofthe Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
None
SECTION III -- BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature ofthe relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
(XJ Check here ifthe Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [X] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Party and, ifthe Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted ofa criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization ofa responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
I
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity of a Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency ofthe federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission ofsuch conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Enlity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or ofthe United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any ofthe following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ofthe U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security ofthe U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
See Attachment B in support of the above.
Page 6 of 13
I I
i
I
I
i
j
i
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). None
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-monlh period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" docs not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name ofthe City recipient. None
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
fx] is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. Wc understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate ofa predatory lender may result in the loss ofthe privilege of doing business with the City."
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Not Applicable
Page 7 of 13
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 ofthe Municipal Code: Does any official or employee ofthe City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes [X] No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., provide the names and business addresses ofthe City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature of such interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. Ifthe Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
x 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI -- CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: Ifthe Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. Ifthe Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
Not Applicable
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or ifthe letters "NA" or ifthe word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthe Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director ofthe Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "No" to question I. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.(the Applicant)is an indirectly
wholly-owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc.
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and arc material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (3 12) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F.I. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor arc the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, properly taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit ihcir subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F. I. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent of the City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that docs not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any ofthe items in F. I., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized lo execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) arc true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
Citigroup Inc.
(Print or type name of Disclosing Party)
(Sigrfhcrc) Eugene Kwon
(Print or type name of person signing)
Assistant Secretary (Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on-fdatc)
~7
Commission expires:_
ยฆ*โขยฆ โ-ยฆ*ยฆ-*-"*- ยฆยซยซยฆ ยฆยซยฆ . i
ALEXANDER UU08 .
OFFICIAL SEAL
Notary PubSo-8tnto of tttxte >
MyCommtealofiExpfraa ,
2017
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
ATTACHMENTS FOR CITIGROUP, INC.
ATTACHMENT A LIST OF CORPORATE OFFICERS
DIRECTORS
Michael L. Corbal Duncan P. Hennes Franz B. Humer
Michael E. O'Neill, Chairman ofthe Board
Gary M. Reiner
Dr. Judith Rodin
Robert L. Ryan
Anthony M. Santomero
Joan E. Spero
Diana L. Taylor
William S. Thompson, Jr.
James S. Turley
Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de Leon
PRINCIPAL OFFICERS" Michael L. Corbat James A. Forese John C. Gerspach Manuel Medina-Mora
Rohan Weerasinghe
Chief Executive Officer, Citigroup Inc.
Co-President of Citigroup Inc. and Chief Executive Officer, ICG Chief Financial Officer
Co-President of Citigroup Inc., Chief Executive Officer, Global Consumer Banking and Chairman, Mexico General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
*As defined in Appendix A of the City of Chicago Economic Disclosure Statement and Affidavit.
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
ATTACHMENTS FOR CITIGROUP, INC.
ATTACHMENT B FURTHER CERTIFICATION
In the ordinary course of business, Citigroup Inc. ("Citigroup") and its subsidiaries and affiliates are defendants or co-defendants in various litigation matters incidental to and typical ofthe broad range of businesses in which they are engaged. For example, typical actions in broker-dealer subsidiaries are civil suits, arbitration proceedings, and other matters related to activities occurring in the normal course of business as a broker and dealer in securities, as an underwriter of securities, as an investment banker or otherwise. From time to time Citigroup, and certain affiliated entities, are the subjects of inquiries and investigations conducted by federal or state regulatory agencies. Citigroup and its affiliated entities routinely cooperate with such investigations.
Citigroup is a public company, and as such files periodic and current reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as required by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that include current descriptions of material regulatory proceedings, investigations and litigation. Copies of Citigroup's periodic reports are on file with the SEC, which can be located at the SEC's website (www.sec.gov ).
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I -- GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: Citigroup Financial Products Inc.
Check ONE of the following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
[X] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest: Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
OR
3. [ J a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B. 1.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
Business address of the Disclosing Party: 3 90 Greenwich Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (312) 876-3564 Fax: (312) 876-3551 Email: samantha. costanzo@citi .com
Name of contact person: Samantha Costanzo
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Finance Department
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II -- DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
1. Indicate the nature ofthe Disclosing P; [ ] Person
[ ] Publicly registered business corporation |X] Privately held business corporation [ ] Sole proprietorship [ ] General partnership [ ] Limited partnership [] Trust
rty:
[ ] Limited liability company [ ] Limited liability partnership [ ] Joint venture [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
(Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: Delaware
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ ] Yes [X] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors ofthe entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management of the Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
See Attachment A for a list of Citigroup Financial Products Inc. Officers and Directors.
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Disclosing Party. Examples ofsuch an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
See Attachment B for a list of direct and indirect owners of
Citigroup Financial Products Inc.
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature ofthe relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
[X] Check here ifthe Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V -- CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [X] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), ifthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee ofthe City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Party and, ifthe Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization ofa business entity following the ineligibility ofa business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the Cily, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity of a Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency ofthe federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security ofthe U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any ofthe above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
See Attachment C in support of the above.
Page 6 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). None
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name ofthe City recipient. None
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[X] is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
Ifthe Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss ofthe privilege of doing business with the City."
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Not Applicable
Page 7 of 13
I
I
I
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance wilh Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matler?
[ ] Yes [XJ No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit ofthe City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ J No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.L, provide the names and business addresses ofthe City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature of such interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
x 1 The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Parly has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: Ifthe Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. Ifthc Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
I. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary): None.
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
i
I
i I
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy of the statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
If the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director ofthe Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (the Applicant)is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Citigroup Financial Products Inc.
Page 10 of 13
I
l
t t
!
i i
i
!
i
I
SECTION VII- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1 -23 and Section 2-1 54-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
I
I
F.l. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F. 1. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent of the City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F. I., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as ofthe date furnished to the City.
(Print or type
Citigroup Financial Products Inc.
;n here)
of Disclosing Party)
David M. Brownstein
(Print or type name of person signing)
Managing Director (Print or type title of person signing)
Notary Public.
Signed and sworn to before mc_jon (date) ~ โข ^ ยฆ at CO 0 K County, -UD>0/5 (state)
Commission expires:
5l6lzon
Page 12 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Parly" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any ofthe following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers ofthe Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B.l.a., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title ofsuch person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature of such familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [X]No
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [ ]No [x] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of the person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address ofthe building or buildings lo which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
i
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
ATTACHMENTS FOR CITIGROUP FINANCIAL PRODUCTS INC.
ATTACHMENT A - LIST OF DIRECTORS AND PRINCIPALS
James A. Forese Director, Chairman, President and CEO
Scott L. Flood Director, Secretary and General Counsel
Cliff Verron Chief Financial Officer
Peter A. Mozcr Treasurer
I
I
I
i
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
ATTACHMENTS FOR CITIGROUP FINANCIAL PRODUCTS INC.
ATTACHMENT B - DIRECT AND INDIRECT OWNERS OF CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.
Entity Owner and Percentage of Interest Percentage of Interest Owner's Business Address
Citigroup Financial Products Inc. A wholly-owned subsidiary of Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. Indirect 100% 390 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10013
Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. A wholly-owned subsidiary Citigroup Inc. Indirect 100% 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10043
Citigroup Inc. Citigroup is a publicly traded organization (NYSE:C) Indirect 100% -
I
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
ATTACHMENTS FOR CITIGROUP FINANCIAL PRODUCTS INC.
ATTACHMENT C - FURTHER CERTIFICATION
In the ordinary course of business, Citigroup Inc. ("Citi"), which holds an indirect interest in the Applicanl, and its subsidiaries are defendants or co-defendants in various litigation matters incidental to and typical of the broad range of businesses in which they are engaged. For example, typical actions in broker-dealer subsidiaries are civil suits, arbitration proceedings, and other matters related to activities occurring in the normal course of business as a broker and dealer in securities, as an underwriter of securities, as an investment banker or otherwise. From time to time Citi, and certain affiliated entities, are the subjects of inquiries and investigations conducted by federal or state regulatory agencies. Citi and its affiliated entities routinely cooperate with such investigations.
To the best of our knowledge, information and belief, we are not aware of any threatened or pending proceedings, investigations or litigation concerning Citi or its subsidiaries, which could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on Citi's ability to perform the services contemplated by the Economic Disclosure Form.
Citi is a public company and as such files periodic and current reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as required by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that include current descriptions of material regulatory proceedings, investigations and litigation. Copies of Citi's periodic reports are on file wilh the SEC, which can be located at the SEC's website (www.sec.gov ).
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc.
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
[x] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest: Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
OR
3. [] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
B. Business address of the Disclosing Party: 3 90 Greenwich Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (312) 876-3564 Fax: (312) 876-3551 Email: samantha . costanzo@citi . com
Name of contact person: Samantha Costanzo
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Finance Department
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
1. Indicate the nature of the Disclosing [ ] Person
[ ] Publicly registered business corporation [X] Privately held business corporation [ ] Sole proprietorship [ ] General partnership [ ] Limited partnership [ ] Trust
Parly:
[ ] Limited liability company [ ] Limited liability partnership [ ] Joint venture [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
(Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable:
New York
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[]N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management of the Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
See Attachment A for a list of Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc.
Officers and Directors.
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest of a member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest of a beneficiary of a trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
See Attachment B for a list of direct and indirect owners of
Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc.
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) ofsuch City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount ofthe fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicale whclher Business retained or anticipated Address to be retained)
Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
(subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
[X] Check here if the Disclosing Parly has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
A. COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Parly been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [k] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes
B. FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article l")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), ifthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
I
j
i
i
i i
i
i
The Disclosing Party and, ifthe Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted ofa criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
. โข any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
I
i
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity of a Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee ofthe City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded wilh other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or ofthe United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any ofthe following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
See Attachment C in support of the above.
Page 6 of 13
Ifthc letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees ofthe Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). None
9. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does nol include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name ofthe City recipient. None
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[X] is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in
Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter
2-32 ofthe Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Not Applicable
Page 7 of 13
I !
i
i
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response, appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Docs any official or employee ofthe City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes |X] No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.l., provide the names and business addresses ofthe City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
x 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations ofthe City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
Not Applicable
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy of the statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that cither: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration ofthe Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
If the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.(the Applicant)is an indirectly
wholly-owned subsidiary of Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc.
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 ofthe Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
i
i I
i
i
i
F. 1. The Disclosing Pany is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, lax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited lo, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors.to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that docs not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has nol provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F. 1., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) arc true, accurate and complete as ofthe date furnished to the City.
Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (Print or type name of Disclosing Party)
(Sign Jrere) Eugene Kwon
(Print or type name of person signing)
Authorized Signatory (Print or type title of person signing)
.//7c//.j (state).
Signed and sworn to before me on_ (dajc)
Notary Public.
at
Commission expires:
Page 12 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Parly" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected cily official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as of the dale this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Parly" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any ofthe following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers ofthe Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B. La., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners ofthe Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Parly is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners ofthe Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary ofa legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title ofthe elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature of such familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
ATTACHMENTS FOR CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS HOLDINGS INC.
ATTACHMENT A - LIST OF DIRECTORS AND PRINCIPALS
James A. Forese Director, Chairman, President and CEO
Scott L. Flood Director, Secretary and General Counsel
Cliff Verron Chief Financial Officer
PelerA.Mozer Treasurer
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
ATTACHMENTS FOR CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS HOLDINGS INC.
ATTACHMENT B - DIRECT AND INDIRECT OWNERS OF CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.
Entity Owner and Percentage of Interest Percentage of Interest Owner's Business Address
Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. A wholly-owned subsidiary Citigroup Inc. Indirect 100% 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10043
Citigroup Inc. Citigroup is a publicly traded organization (NYSE:C) Indirect 100%
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
ATTACHMENTS FOR CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS HOLDINGS INC.
ATTACHMENT C - FURTHER CERTIFICATION
In the ordinary course of business, Citigroup Inc. ("Citi"), which holds an indirect interest in the Applicant, and its subsidiaries are defendants or co-defendants in various litigation matters incidental to and typical of the broad range of businesses in which they are engaged. For example, typical actions in broker-dealer subsidiaries are civil suits, arbitration proceedings, and other matters related to activities occurring in the normal course of business as a broker and dealer in securities, as an underwriter of securities, as an investment banker or otherwise. From time to time Citi, and certain affiliated entities, are the subjects of inquiries and investigations conducted by federal or state regulatory agencies. Citi and its affiliated entities routinely cooperate with such investigations.
To the best of our knowledge, information and belief, we are not aware of any threatened or pending proceedings, investigations or litigation concerning Citi or its subsidiaries, which could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on Citi's ability to perform the services contemplated by the Economic Disclosure Form.
Citi is a public company and as such files periodic and current reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as required by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that include current descriptions of material regulatory proceedings, investigations and litigation. Copies of Citi's periodic reports are on file with the SEC, which can be located at the SEC's website ( www.sec.gov ).
AFFIDAVIT
DEBT OBLIGATION AND BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS
Name of Reporting Finn: Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Description of Matter: General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
Role of Reporting Firm: Co-Manager
This affidavit is submitted in conjunction with (check one):
X_ a City of Chicago debt obligation transaction (Municipal Code Section 2-154-017)
brokerage services for the City Treasurer (Municipal Code Section 2-154-018)
Fill out below (and attach additional sheets using the same format, if necessary), the following information for each person in the Reporting Firm who will directly provide professional services to the City in connection with the Matter described above: the individual's position in the Reporting Firm and the role he or she will fill in the Matter, gender, and race or ethnicity. Individuals1 names need not be disclosed.
Individual # Position and Role Gender Racc/Ethniciry |109|Guy Logan (Managing Director, Co-Lead Banker) ยฎ F African American |109|Samantha Costanzo (Managing Director, Co-Lead Banker M (f) Caucasian |109|Brett Padgett (Director, Banking Support) ยฉ F Caucasian |109|Devin Dillard (Analyst, Analytical Support) ยฉ F African American |109|Alex Laios (Associate, Transaction Support) (M) F Caucasian
(If needed, please use additional sheets to identify additional personnel.)
By signing below, I represent under penalty of perjury that: (I) I am authorized to act on behalf of the Reporting Firm, and (2) the infonnation in this Affidavit and associated attachment are true, complete, and correct.
By signing below, I understand and acknowledge, on behalf of the Reporting Firm, that failure to accurately and completely supply the information requested herein may result in a declaration of ineligibility to participate in future Matters for the City of Chicago.
Printed Name: Samantha Costanzo
Signature^ J^^X^^,/ 5โ
I
I
Title: Managing Director Date: 6/8/2015
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable:
Check ONE of the following three boxes:
Indicate whcakcT the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
(?fthe Applicant
OR
[ ] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest:
OR
3. [ ] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) Slate the legal name ofthe entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
B. Business address of the Disclosing Party: iYWif \ V'*> (AJT O'sA^K-^
C-hjxc^O^ Ti. Xjtd^O\ |1010|Telephone: X^-C&ll Fax: Email: ^A^&T^j^hn iOf\^
Name of contact person:
E. Federal Employer Identification No. (ifyou have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? .Di fYV^WViO.nr Q*~ rl ^Or\02_
Ifthe Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
SECTION 11 - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
[] Limited liability company [ ] Limited liability partnership [ ] Joint venture [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
(Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 50.1(c)(3))?
[ ] Limited partnership
I. Indicate the nature of the Disclosing Party: [ ] Person [ [ ] Publicly registered business corporation [ [fJ^-PfTvately held business corporation [ [ ] Sole proprietorship [ [ ] General partnership (1
[ ] Trust [
[ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable:
[]No
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which arc legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
Ifthe entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or enlity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples ofsuch an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 ofthe M unicipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicanl which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes
if yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such relation ship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount ofthe fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees wrho are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must cither ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether retained or anticipated to be retained)
Business Address
Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
(subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
here ifthc Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
A. COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes
B. FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), ifthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party-certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee ofthe City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
I
I
I
I
!
I
The Disclosing Party and, ii' the Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities dentified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery ; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of titis EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization ofa business entity following the ineligibility ofa business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
โข any responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization ofa responsible official ofthe Disclosing Parly, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of cither the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date ofsuch Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
a. bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee ofthe City, the State of Illinois, or any agency ofthe federal government or of any slate or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any ofthe following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
Page 6 of 13
I
i
i
I
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None." or no response appears on. the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS. an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
9. To the best of the Disclosing Parly's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available lo City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient.
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
1. The Disclosing Parly certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[]is
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal. Code.
2. If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are nol and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predaiory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-45 5(b) ofthe Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
I
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusive!}' presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-1 56 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 ofthe Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes (y^No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.L, proceed to Hems D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.L, proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit ofthe City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Propertvjjale?
[ ] Yes [ij^kf
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.L, provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or emplo3'ees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. Ifthe Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
J. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Parly has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: If the M atter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Parly means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
I
I
I
I i
t
The Disclosing Parly will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy of the statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) il is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an. organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the In ternal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration ofthe Matler and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthe Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of tlie Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and arc material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect lo the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicaRO.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the Cily may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make litis document available to ihe public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all ofthe information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Acl request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: Wilh respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 ofthe Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page I 1 of L3
FJ . The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited lo, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is ihe Applicant, the Disclosing Parly and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance lo those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does nol provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F.L, F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Parly, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of ihe date furnished to the City.
(Print or type name of person signing)
(Print or type title of person signing)
at '/h^fWjhโ County, fVAAju^Us&v(sM&\ '
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF NEW JERSEY ID # 2165826 ' *' COMMISSION EXPIRES WAY It', 2019
I
i
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as of the date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any ofthe following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B. 1.a., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners ofthe Disclosing Party, if die Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, ifthc Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers ofthe Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Part}'. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretaiy of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected cjty^bfficial or department head?
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title ofsuch person, (2) the name of the legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title ofthe elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
I
I
I
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal
Code?
[ ]Ycs
2. Ifthe Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes
3. lf yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of the person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address ofthe building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
i
I
AFFIDAVIT
DEBT OBLIGATION AND BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS
Name of Reporting Firm: P\CXk( If. V v <~^C~r^.r \r-. \ C*>f CVvpj _,\ <^ Description of Matter: Gafcrvtr<\\ tk^V c<-"-", V^ia< Role of Reporting Firm: V vr-vxr->r \c.ic . V-V.SjO\ 'Jx.v f~
This affidavit is submitted in conjunction with (check one):
a City of Chicago debt obligation transaction (Municipal Code Section 2-154-017) brokerage services forthe City Treasurer (Municipal Code Section 2-154-018)
Fill out below (and attach additional sheets using flic same format, if necessary), the following information for each person iu the Reporting Firm who will directly provide professional services to the City in connection with the Matter described above: the individual's position in the Reporting Firm and the role he or she will fill in the Matter, gender, and race or ethnicity. Individuals' names need not be disclosed.
Individual # <- Position and Role Gender Race/Ethnicity
\ \,Oc*o& C^v o C \>ยป fe c.\c (m>
\
3c- \J\Cjl S^csยซc3^.r\V
\ Pยซ>- \J\t-x . fe^AonV
(If needed, please use uddidonal sheets to identify additional personnel.)
By signing below, 1 represent under penally of perjury that: (1)1 am authorized to act on behalf of the Reporting Firm, and (2) the information in this Affidavit and associated attachment are true, complete, and correct.
By signing below, 1 understand and acknowledge, on behalf of the Reporting Firm, that failure to accurately and completely supply the information requested herein may result in a declaration of ineligibility io participate in future Matters for the City of Chicago.
Individual # Position and Role Gender Race/Ethnicity |109|Associate M (V White
I
I
I|1010|
I
I
I
Individual Position and Role |109|Co-President - Oversight of Engagement |109|Managing Director - Pricing and Quantiviate Anaiytics |109|Sr. Vice President - Day-to-Day and Project Manager |109|Sr. Vice President - Quantitative 03y to-Day/Transaction Support |109|Asst. Vice President - Day-to-Day and Quantitative Team |109|Associate - Analytical Team
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I -- GENERAL INFORMATION
Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: Zions First National Bank
Check ONE of the following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[X] the Applicant
OR
[ ] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest:
OR
3. [] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
Business address of the Disclosing Party: 111 W. Washington, Suite 1860
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 763-4257 Fax: (855) 216-8162 Email: robert.demos@zionsbank.com
Name of contact person: Robert Demos
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable): Corporate Trustee Services Paying Agent/Bond Registrar for
City of Chicago, IL General Obligation Bonds Series 2015
Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
I
I
i
I
SECTION II ~ DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY 1. Indicate [he nature of Ihe Disclosing Parly:
[ ] Person [ ]
ยฃ4 Publicly registered business corporation [ ]
[ ] Privately held business corporation [ ]
[ ] Sole proprietorship [ ]
[ ] General partnership (Is
[ ] Limited partnership
[ ] Trust [ ]
Limited liability company Limited liability partnership Joint venture
Not-for-profit corporation
the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable:
UTAh
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[JYes [JNo ^N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors ofthe entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
Ifthe entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management of the Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name . . Title
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
i
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, stale "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 ofthe Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the Cily may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended lo achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Parly
Zions Bancorporation I South Main Street, Salt Lake City, UT 100%
SECTION III -- BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) ofsuch City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV -- DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
I
Name (indicate whether retained or anticipated to be retained)
Business Address
Relationship lo Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
(subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
^ Check here ifthe Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities
SECTION V -- CERTIFICATIONS
A. COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[] Yes
B. FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the' Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Party and, if the Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section IT.B. 1 . of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted ofa criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any ofthe offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization ofa responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee ofthe City, the Slate of Illinois, or any agency ofthe federal government or of any state or local government in the United Stales of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission ofsuch conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
No toe
Page 6 of 13
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified lo the above statements.
8. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a
complete list of all current employees ofthe Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-
month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official,
of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
A/QAJS
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient.
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
$ is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss ofthe privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
AT/A
Page 7 of 13
I
i
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 ofthe Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes M No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. If you checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.l., provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature of such interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with (he City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
_X_t โข T he Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued lo slaveholders that provided coverage for damage lo or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. Ifthe Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
fJOA/g'
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "NA" or ifthe word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Parly certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section
501 (c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1 986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying
Activities". . ยฆ
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthe Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
KI Yes []No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
1. Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[JNo
2. Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director ofthe Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[JNo
3. Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
^Yes [ J No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII โ ACKNOVV LEDGM ENTS, CONTRACT INCORPOR AT10N, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all ofthe information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F.l. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicanl, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or lo be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance lo those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent of the City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any ofthe items in F.l., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
Zions First National Bank
(Print or type name of Disclosing Party)
By:
(Sign here)
Robert Demos
(Print or type name of person signing)
Vice President
(Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date) ยฃp{$/
at GoOjZ County, ^Ll/fUpt^ (state).
Commission expires:
Notary Public.
Page 12 of 13
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that with respect to bonding arrangements, including, but not limited to, tax warrants, interim warrants, general obligation bonds, special assessment bonds, revenue bonds and industrial development revenue bonds, each in an amount not exceeding 510,000,000.00 in which Zions First National Bank participates as trustee and/or as purchaser, the following officers are hereby authorized to execute, authenticate and attest for and on behalf of Zions First National Bank any and all agreements, documents and certificates, including, but not limited to, any Indenture of Trust,.as may be necessary in connection with tlie issuance of bonds pursuant to such arrangement and the ftnalization of such transaction:
Richard J. Sullivan, III - EVP & trust Officer Anna McCulIy - AVP & Trust Officer Annette Langheinrich - Vice President Aria K. Scott - Trust Officer Bryant Eckert - Vice President Carl J. Mathis - Vice President & Trust Officer Chaitali Patel โ Senior Vice President Dan Ellison - Trust Officer
Daniel J. Dixon - Sr. Vice President & Trust Officer
Daryl Pomykala - Vice President
David Van Wagoner - Vice President & Trust Officer
David W. Bata - Sr. Vice President & Trust Officer
Dawn Richards - Vice President & Trust Officer
Deirdre Steven - Vice President
Deirdre Ward - Vice President & Trust Officer
Eric Mitzel - Vice President
Erin Fitzpatrick - Vice President
Gregory G. Cross - Vice President & Trust Officer
Jacqueline Nowak โVice President
James E. Becker - Officer
James Henry - Vice President
Jennifer Eckert - AVP & Trust Officer
Joni D'Amico - Vice President & Trust Officer
Linda Anderson โ Trust Officer
Lome Lctchworth - Trust Officer
Mark D. Petrasso - SVP & Business DeveLOfficer
Mark Henson - Vice President & Trust Officer
Mary Jane Henson - Senior Vice President
Melissa Urishko - AVP & Trust Officer
Michael Jones - Vice President
Nancy Eatros - Vice President & Trust Officer
Neil B. Witoff- Vice President & Trust Officer
Pathricia O'Connor - Vice President & Trust Officer
Ramona K. Johns - AVP & Trust Officer
Robert Cafarelli - Vice President
Robert Demos - Vice President
Ryan M. Pollihan - Vice President & Trust Officer
Sandi Kinney - Vice President & Trust Officer
Sandra D. Stevens - Vice President & Trust Officer
Scon Blair - Vice President & Trust Officer
Shelene Brown - Vice President & Trust Officer
Stephanie Nicholls - Vice President & Trust Officer
Twyla D. Lehlo - Senior Vice President & Trust
Officer
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, with respect to those bonding transactions in which Zions First National Bank is named as trustee, that Zions First National Bank does accept the trust imposed upon it, under and by virtue of the documentation in connection with such transaction and agrees to perform said trust subject to the express tenns and conditions set forth in said documentation.
I
i
ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK Certificate ofthe Corporate Secretary
I, KAY B.; HALL, dp hereby certify that I am duly elected Secretary of the Board of Directors of Zions First National Bank, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United States, and that the Resolutiqn. attached hereto. as; Exhibit A was duly arid legally adopted by the Board of Difectors of Zioris First National Bank at a duly called and convened regular meeting :beld .^X^uaj>y 2Q).:2Q15.
I also qertify that thc.attach'ed Resolution has riot been amended and is now in full force and effect;
IN WITNESS':VyHE^O^ l^rye executed this certificate this 21st day Of Janua^^prS^
STATE OF UTAH
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE' )
On this 21st day of Januaiy, 20i5, personally appeared before me'Kay B, Hall, Secretary of tlie Board of Directors of Zions FirstKafional Bank, who acknowledged that he executed the foregoing.
NOTARY PUBLIC .
ELIZABETH ANN NAKANO
I Commission No. 672177 I
l*-V&ยปa)M Commission Expires i
VS^y// NOVEMBER 15, 2017
I "v-^-rโ,."" STATE OF UTAH 1
i ยฆ '
Residing at:" Salt Lake County
My commission expires: November 15, 2017
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as of the date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers ofthe Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B.La., if the Disclosing Patty is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes rXl No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title ofsuch person, (2) the name of the legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature of such familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
I
Attachment A for B (1) ZFNB
Name Tit,c
Scott Anderson President & CEO of Zions First National Bank
Kay Hall Chief Financial Officer
Thad Allen Chief Credit Officer
Dalen Slater Chief Credit Officer
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes D^No
Ifthe Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes 0^3 No [ ] Not Applicable
3. If yes lo (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name ofthe person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address of the building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
ZIONS BANCORPORATION
Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policy Statement
Effective January 1, 2015
POLICY:
It is the policy of Zions Ban corporation lo provide equal opportunity to all persons without regard to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, disability, or any bases protected by applicable law. Company policy prohibits harassment of applicants or employees related to these bases.
Zions Bancorporation has established a continuing Affirmative Action Program to assure equal employment opportunity in all its policy decisions affecting recruitment, selection, assignment, promotion, training, and all other terms and conditions of employment,
RESPONSIBILITY:
With the support of top management, Dianne James, Corporate Chief HR Officer, EVP is the person responsible for implementing our affirmalive action efforts to ensure that the principle of equal employment opportunity is understood, followed, and a reality in our Company. All employees are responsible to act in accordance with the Company's EEO policy, and are encouraged to.assist the Company's affirmative efforts in support of its EEO policy. All members of management must be familiar with this policy, must fully support it, and are responsible to apply these principles in good faith.
This statement is being posled to provide applicants and employees with knowledge of Zions Bancorporation's commitment to assure equal employment opportunity. The EEO/Afflnnalive Action Plan for Disabled Workers and Covered Veterans is available to review by applicants and employees on weekdays during normal working hours. For further information contact Mike Tait, {801)844-7990.
Dianne James (_J Corporate Chief HR Officer, EVP
tarris H. Simmons Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
ro c Z B <
'a c
to
a
V)
E
Si
m 2
X.
z < m
<
g
<
|1010|n n.
a
a: u: w z o
E
LL
T3
__ ~ oo
c
vt ro
โข2 s ยป :-"!!ยป
TOo-t-idOyO-iwi-
=3 "5
S co e
ra tn S O ยซ
1111 -s
in .H > rag
ยซ' SS Si
โข51 e
moo
I
AFFIDAVIT
DEBT OBLIGATION AND BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS
Name of Reporting Firm: Zions First National Bank
Description of Matter: City of Chicago General Obligation Bonds Series 2015
Role of Reporting Firm: Paying Agent and Bond Registrar
This affidavit is submitted in conjunction with (check one):
X a City of Chicago debt obligation transaction (Municipal Code Section 2-154-017)
brokerage services for the City Treasurer (Municipal Code Section 2-154-018)
Fill out below (and attach additional sheets using the same format, if necessary), the following information for each person in the Reporting Firm who will directly provide professional services to the City in connection with the Matter described above: the individual's position in the Reporting Firm and the role he or she will fill in the Matter, gender, and race or ethnicity. Individuals' names need not be disclosed.
Individual # Position and Role Gender Race/Ethnicity
Robert Demos Vice President/Manager Daryl Pomykala Vice President/Relationship Mgr. m(f) Caucasian
Robert Cafarelli Vice President/Relationship Mgr.(Backup) Caucasian
M F
M F
(If needed, phase use additional sheets lo identify additional personnel.)
By signing below, I represent under penalty of perjury that: (I) I am authorized to act on behalf of the Reporting Firm, and (2) tlie information in this Affidavit and associated attachment are true, complete, and correct.
By signing below, [ understand and acknowledge, on behalf of the Reporting Firm, that failure to accurately and completely supply the information requested herein may result in a declaration of ineligibility to participate in future Matters forthe City of Chicago.
Printed Name
Signature
Title: Vice Presid&nt
Date: 6/9/2015
(
i
I
t
I
I
I
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I -- GENERAL INFORM ATION
Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: Zions Bancorporation
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[ ] the Applicant
OR
[X] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the Applicanl in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest: Zions First National Bank
OR
3. [] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
Business address of the Disclosing Party: 1 South Main Street, I5lh Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84133
Telephone: (312) 763-4257 Fax: (855) 216-8162 Email: robert.demos@zionsbank.com
Name of contact person: Robert Demos
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
Corporate Trustee Services Paying Agent/Bond Registrar for City of Chicago, IL General Obligation Bonds Series 2015
Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
- DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
1. Indicate the nature ofthe Disclosing Party:
[] Person [] Limited liability company
J><ยฃ Publicly registered business corporation [ ] Limited liability partnership
[ ] Privately held business corporation [ ] Joint venture
[ ] Sole proprietorship [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
[ ] General partnership (Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Limited partnership [ ] Yes [ ] No
[] Trust [] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable:
Lp~*h
3. For legal entities nol organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ ] Yes [ ] No XI N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholcler(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management of the Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name A / . , /. Title
See AtUkAiejirf- A
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
I
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, stale "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-1 54-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
fVOrsJ^
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[JYes (YjNo
If yes, please identify below the name(s) ofsuch City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Paity Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
lo be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
[ ] Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V -- CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes No [ ] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[JYes []No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
I
I
The Disclosing Parly and, ifthe Disclosing Party is a legal entity, al! of those persons or entities identi l ied in Section II.B. 1. of this EDS:
a are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting lo obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, stale or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
cl. have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
e. have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government,.any stale, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed .under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common conlrol of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization ofa business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
I
Neither tlie Disclosing Parly, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either tlie Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the. five years before the dale this EDS is signed, or, with respect lo a Contractor, an Affiliated Enlity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during tlie five years before the date ofsuch Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency ofthe federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in lhat officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a parly to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America lhat contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any ofthe above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
MQ/J^
Page 6 of 13
I|1010|
I
!
i
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified lo the above statements.
8. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused lo be given, at any time during the 1 2-monlh period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate wiih "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient.
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[ ] is [ ] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss ofthe privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
m. :
Page 7 of 13
I
I
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified lo the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that arc defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2 -1 56-110 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes |XfNo
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.L, proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. If you checked "No" to Item D.I., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit ofthe City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.L, provide the names and business addresses ofthe City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee,
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
I
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the Cily.
__AJ ยฆ Tne Disclosing Parly verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage lo or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Parly verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI -- CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. If the Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
A/oyv^
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, of if the letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Parly has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or enlity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy of the statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section
501 (c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration ofthe Matter and must make such certifications promptly available lo the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthe Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
$ Yes
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
1. Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
f^Yes
2. Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[]No
'.f you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees lhat:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
Tlie City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at wvvw.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully wiih the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. Ifthe Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F.l. The Disclosing Parly is not delinquent in the payment of any lax administered by (he Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, lax or other charge owed to the Cily. This includes, but is not limited lo, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicanl, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will nol use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent of the City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F.l., F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
ZIONS BANCORPORATION
(Print or type name of Disclosing Party)
ByU /
(Sign here)
Robert Demos
(Print or type name of person signing)
Vice President
(Print or type title of person signing)
Page 12 of 13
!
i
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.S percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B.La., ifthe Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary ofa legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes ^ No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title ofsuch person, (2) the name ofthe legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature of such familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
Attachment A for B (1)
Name
Harris Simmons
Roger B. Porter
Jerry C. Atkin
John C. Erickson
Patricia Frobes
J. David Heancy
L.E. Simmons
Steven Wheelwright
Shelley Thomas Williams
Doyle Arnold
Scott McLean
Bruce K. Alexander
Scott Anderson
David Blackford
Julie G. Castle
Dallas E. Haun W. David Hemingway Dianne R. James Thomas E. Laursen Keith D. Maio Michael Morris Joe Reilly Stanley D. Savage Edward P. Schreiber Steven D. Stephens James R. Abbott Travis E. Finstad Alexander Hume Ronald L. Johnson Alvin Lee Norman W. Merritt Matthew L. Tyler
Title
Chairman & CEO of Zions Bancorporation
Director
Director
Director
Director
Director
Director
Director
Director
Chief Financial Officer President
EVP, CEO of Vectra Bank Colorado
EVP, CEO of Zions First National Bank
EVP, CEO of California Bank & Trust
EVP, CEO of Zions Capital Advisors,
Chariman of Zions Trust, N.A.
EVP, CEO of Nevada State Bank
EVP, Capital Markets and Investments
EVP, Chief Human Resources
EVP and General Counsel
EVP, CEO of National Bank of Arizona
EVP, Chief Credit Officer
EVP, Chief Information Officer
EVP, CEO of Commerce Bank of Washington
EVP, Chief Risk Officer
EVP, CEO of Amegy Bank of Texas
SVP, Investor Relations
SVP, Internal Audit
SVP and Controller
SVP, Credit Examination
SVP, Corporate Development
SVP, Compliance
SVP, Corporate Finance
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ I Yes f^]No
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[JYes [X3No [ J Not Applicable
If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of the person or legal entity identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address ofthe building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
ZIONS BANCORPORATION
Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policy Statement
Effective January 1, 2015
POLICY:
II is the policy of Zions Bancorporation lo provide equal opportunity to all persons without regard to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, disability, or any bases protected by applicable law. Company policy prohibits harassment of applicants or employees related to these bases.
Zions Bancorporation has established a continuing Affirmative Action Program to assure equal employment opportunity in all its policy decisions affecting recruitment, selection, assignment, promotion, training, and all other terms and conditions of employment.
RESPONSIBILITY:
With the support of lop management, Dianne James, Corporate Chief HR Officer. EVP is the person responsible for implementing our affinnalive action efforts to ensure that the principle of equal employment opportunity is understood, followed, and a reality in our Company. All employees are responsible to act in accordance with the Company's EEO policy, and are encouraged lo.assist Ihe Company's affirmative efforts in support of its EEO policy. All members of management must be familiar with this policy, must fully support it, and are responsible to apply these principles in good faith.
This statement is being posted to provide applicants and employees with knowledge of Zions Bancorporation's commitment lo assure equal employment opportunity. The EEO/Afflrmalive Action Plan for Disabled Workers and Covered Veterans is available to review by applicants and employees on weekdays during normal working hours. For further information contact Mike Tait. (801)044-7990.
Dianne James [_J Corporate Chief HR Officer, EVP
tarrls H. Simmons Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
E <
a
X
E <
re c
2 < CO -J
< z o I-< z
o H
13
el
ยฆ56 BJ'S SJg 55
11-BlOUOjBlt-
01 rd
! a
c โ
I o o ยฃ 5 ' .5 ! E ยซ s
_ S W 8 Si
nj w c; CJ o "โ
5 12 >
tOcli-WOOO JWh
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name ofthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: Chapman and Cutler LLP
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
D<] the Applicant
OR
[] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest:
OR
3. [] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
111 West Monroe Street
B. Business address of the Disclosing Party: ;
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(312)845-3494 (312)516-3294 corbih@chapman.com
Telephone: Fax: Email:
William E. Corbin, Jr.
Name of contact person:
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one): _
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
Bond Counsel and Special Disclosure Counsel (Pension) for General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
Department of Finance
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? |
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II -- DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY 1. Indicate the nature of the Disclosing Party:
Person [ ] Limited liability company
Publicly registered business corporation &(] Limited liability partnership
Privately held business corporation [ ] Joint venture
Sole proprietorship [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
General partnership (Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
Limited partnership [ ] Yes [ ] No
Trust โข [ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: Illinois
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors ofthe entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
Timothy P. Mohan Chief Executive Partner '__
William M. Libit Chief Operating Partner
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest of a beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 ofthe Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional infonnation from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
Not applicable - No partner's interest in the firm exceeds 7.5%
SECTION III -- BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[]Yes IX] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature ofthe relationship, and the total amount ofthe fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll."
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
I
I
i
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
|X] Check here ifthe Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [X] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes . [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Party and, if the Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities-identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, stale or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency ofthe federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or ofthe United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ofthe U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security ofthe U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
Page 6 of 13
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees ofthe Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). None.
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name ofthe City recipient. None.
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[ ] is fXI is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate ofa predatory lender may result in the loss ofthe privilege of doing business with the City."
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
1. In accordance with Section 2-156-110 ofthe Municipal Code: Does any official or employee
of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or
entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes ft] No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.L, proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.L, proceed to Part E.
2. . Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City
elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of
any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold
for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively,
"City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power
does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Docs the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
3. Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.L, provide tlie names and business addresses ofthe City
officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature ofsuch interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
X 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: Ifthe Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. Ifthe Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or ifthe letters "NA" or ifthe word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy ofthe statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A. 1. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration ofthe Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
If the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[]Yes []No If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[]Yes []No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[]Yes []No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
I
I
SECTION VII -- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. Ifthe Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F.l. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Parly or ils Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, tlie Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any ofthe items in F.L, F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
Chapman and Cutler LLP .
(Print or type name of Disclosing Party)
(Sign here)
William E: Corbin, Jr.
(Print or type name of person signing)
Partner and Authorized Signatory
(Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date) June 5, 2015
at Cook County, Illinois (state).
OFFICIAL SEAL NIKKI L. ROVAK Notary Public - State of Illinois My Commission Expires 8/04/2018
v5\\A&ML. ^ Ai-R^' Notary Public.
Commission expires: ^NfiV^Cp^ . .
Page 12 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any ofthe following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother, or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B.La., ifthe Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title ofsuch person, (2) the name of the legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title ofthe elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature of such familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes fcJNo
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [ JNo [XJ Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of the person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address of the building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FDLLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
AFFIDAVIT
DEBT OBLIGATION AND BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS
Name of Reporting Firm: Chapman and Cutler LLP
Description of Matter: General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
Role of Reporting Firm: Co-Bond Counsel
This affidavit is submitted in conjunction with (check one):
X a City of Chicago debt obligation transaction (Municipal Code Section 2-154-017)
_ brokerage services for the City Treasurer (Municipal Code Section 2-154-018)
Fill out below (and attach additional sheets using the same format, if necessary), the following information for each person in the Reporting Firm who will directly provide professional services to the City in connection with the Matter described above: the individual's position in the Reporting Firm and the role he or she will fill in the Matter, gender, and race or ethnicity. Individuals' names need not be disclosed.
Individual # Position and Role Gender . Race/Ethnicity |109|Partner (Bond Counsel) White |109|Associate (Bond Counsel) (m) f Black or African American |109|Associate (Bond and Pension Disclosure Counsel) (m)f White |109|Partner (Tax Matters) (m)f White |109|Associate (Tax Matters) White
(If needed, please use additional sheets to identify additional personnel.)
By signing below, I represent under penalty of perjury that: (1) I am authorized to act on behalf ofthe Reporting Firm, and (2) the information in this Affidavit and associated attachment are true, complete, and correct.
By signing below, I understand and acknowledge, on behalf of the Reporting Firm, that failure to accurately and completely supply the information requested herein may result in a declaration of ineligibility to participate in future Matters for the City of Chicago.
Printed Name: William E. Corbin, Jr.
Signature: [jJi^M.^^rx 2^. (S^V-^
Title: Partner
Date: June 8,2015
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable:
Hardwick Law Firm, LLC
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[X] the Applicant
OR
[ ] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest:
OR
3. [ ] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B. 1.) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
Business address of the Disclosing Party: 100 N LaSalle Street, Suite 501
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Telephone: 312-634-1000 Fax: 312-634-1002 Email: hhardwick@hardwicklaw.com
Name of contact person: Herbert E. Hardwick
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds Series 2015
Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? City of Chicago
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
j
i I
I
SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
1. Indicate the nature of the Disclosing Party:
[ ] Person [X] Limited liability company
[ ] Publicly registered business corporation [ ] Limited liability partnership
[ ] Privately held business corporation [ ] Joint venture
[ ] Sole proprietorship [ ] Not-for-profit corporation
[ ] General partnership (Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Limited partnership [ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Trust [ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable:
Missouri
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business
in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[X] Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
Ifthe entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
Herbert E. Hardwick President
Jean Z. Matzeder Vice President/Secretary
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Disclosing Party. Examples ofsuch an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest ofa beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2-154-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
Herbert E. Hardwick, 100 N LaSalle St. Suite 501, Chicago, Illinois 87.5%
Jean Z. Matzeder, 100 N LaSalle St. Suite 501, Chicago. Illinois 12.5%
RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [x] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) ofsuch City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
I
t i
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
[x] Check here ifthe Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [x] No [ ] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), ifthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Party and, ifthe Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted ofa criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization ofa business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity of a Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Parly, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department ofthe Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
Page 6 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees of the Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
None
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name ofthe City recipient.
None
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[ ] is [x] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) ofthe Municipal Code.
Ifthe Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes [X] No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.L, proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. Ifyou checked "No" to Item D.L, proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [X] No
3. Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.L, provide the names and business addresses ofthe City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature of such interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. Ifthe Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
_X_ 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: Ifthe Matter is federaliy funded, complete this Section VI. Ifthe Matter is not federally
funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity-listed in Paragraph A. 1. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
I
I
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy of the statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A. 1. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration ofthe Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Ifthe Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
I I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
A. The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any
contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether
procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution
of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that
it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F. 1. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any
contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F. 1. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent of the City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason lo believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F.L, F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf of the Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
Hardwick Law Firm, LLC / ~x
(Sign here)
Herbert E. Hardwick
(Print or type name of person signing)
President
(Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date), June 8, 2015 , by Herbert E. Hardwick
frY
at Jackson _County, Missouri (state).
Notary Public.
M. KAYE DREW Notary Public. Notary
Commission expires:
Page 12 of 13
State of Missouri Jackson County
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-01 5, tire Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as ofthe date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of the Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B. l.a., ifthe Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Parmer thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title ofsuch person, (2) the name of the legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature of such familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [X] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of the person or legal entity identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address ofthe building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
AFFIDAVIT
DEBT OBLIGATION AND BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS
Name of Reporting Firm: Hardwick Law Firm, LLC
Description of Matter: General Obligation Refunding Bonds 2015
Role of Reporting Firm: Co-Bond Counsel
This affidavit is submitted in conjunction with (check one):
X a City of Chicago debt obligation transaction (Municipal Code Section 2-154-017)
brokerage services for the City Treasurer (Municipal Code Section 2-154-018)
Fill out below (and attach additional sheets using the same format, if necessary), the following information for each person in the Reporting Firm who will directly provide professional services to the City in connection with the Matter described above: the individual's position in the Reporting Firm and the role he or she will fill in the Matter, gender, and race or ethnicity. Individuals' names need not be disclosed.
Individual # Position and Role Gender Race/Ethnicity |109|Owner, review and comment on transaction documents. M F African American |109|Owner, lead attorney, prepare assigned documents, review and provide comment on transaction documents. M F Caucasian |109|Principal, co-lead attorney, prepare, review and comment on transaction documents. M F African American |109|Paralegal, provide legal and administrative assistance. M F Caucasian
(If needed, please use additional sheets to identify additional personnel.)
By signing below, I represent under penalty of perjury that: (1) I am authorized to act on behalf ofthe Reporting Firm, and (2) the information iri this Affidavit and associated attachment are true, complete, and correct.
By signing below, I understand and acknowledge, on behalf of the Reporting Firm, that failure to accurately and completely supply the information requested herein may result in a declaration of ineligibility to participate in future Matters for the City^-.Chicago.
Printed Nai
Signature:
Title: President
Date: June 8. 2015
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I -- GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Legal name of the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: Duanc Morris LLP
Check ONE ofthe following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[X] the Applicant
OR
[ ] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name ofthe
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest:
OR
3. [ ] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.l.) State the legal name ofthe entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
B. Business address of the Disclosing Party: 190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60603-3433
Telephone: 312-499-0112 Fax: 312-277-2395 Email: sjgray@duanemorris.com
Name of contact person: Steven J. Gray
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds, Series 2015
G. Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance
If the Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
I
SECTION II - DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY
Person
Publicly registered business corporation
Privately held business corporation
Sole proprietorship
General partnership
Limited partnership
Trust
[ ] Limited liability company
fx] Limited liability partnership
[ ] Joint venture
[ ] Not-for-profit corporation
(Is the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable:
Pennsylvania
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the Slate of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[X] Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal tilleholder(s).
Ifthe entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management ofthe Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
John J. Soroko Chairman
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% of the Disclosing Party. Examples of such an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest of a beneficiary ofa trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant lo Section 2-1 54-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
None
SECTION III -- BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this HDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [x] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature ofthe relationship, and the total amount ofthe fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes lo influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
If the Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the Cily whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Fees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
(Add sheets if necessary)
Ix] Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V -- CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes [ ] No fc] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[]Yes []No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article l")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), ifthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicanl and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee of the City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business wilh the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
The Disclosing Parly and. ifthe Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B. 1. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, stale or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity lhat, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization ofa business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect lo Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official ofthe Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page 5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of either the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting lo bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or ofthe United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any of the following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
Page 6 of 13
j
i
I
Ifthc letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees ofthe Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none").
N'one
9. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name ofthe City recipient.
None
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[ ] is |x] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
If the Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because il or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
i
|1010|
i
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 of the Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes [X] No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. If you checked "No" to Item D.L, proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.L, provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature of such interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection with the Matter voidable by the City.
X 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued lo slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: Ifthe Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. Ifthe Matter is not federally funded, proceed lo Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
I. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or ifthe letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, il will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.L above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee ofa member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy of the statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that either: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.l. through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
If the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[JYes [JNo
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ J Yes [ ] No
If you checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will, become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and arc material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at wwvv.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
If the City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available lo the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Infonnation Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of information contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS musl be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 of the Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants lhat:
Page 11 of 13
F.l. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Parly or its Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, tax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, properly taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.l. and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent ofthe City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that does not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has not provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any of the items in F.L, F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement must be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authonzed to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) are true, accurate and complete as of the date furnished to the City.
Duanc Morris LLP
(Print or type name of Disclosing Party)
Steven J. Gray (Print or type name of person signing)
Partner
(Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and sworn to before me on (date) June 8, 2015
at Cjxfifa County, Illinois (state).
Notary Public.
Page 12 of 13
I i
I
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if as of the dale this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, tlie city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any ofthe following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, molher-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers of tlie Disclosing Party listed in Section II.B. La., ifthe Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners ofthe Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of tlie Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited partnership; all managers, managing members and members of the Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary ofa legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Docs the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Parly" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title ofsuch person, (2) the name of the legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature of such familial relationship.
Page 13 of .13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [x]No
Ifthe Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [x ] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of the person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address ofthe building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
AFFIDAVIT
DEBT OBLIGATION AND BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS
Name of Reporting Firm: Duane Morris LLP
Description of Matter: General Obligation Refinancing Bonds, Series 2015
Role of Reporting Firm: Co-Disclosure Counsel
This affidavit is submitted in conjunction with (check one):
X a Cily of Chicago debt obligation transaction (Municipal Code Section 2-154-017)
brokerage services for the City Treasurer (Municipal Code Section 2-154-018)
Fill out below (and attach additional sheets using the same format, if necessary), the following information for each person in the Reporting Finn who will directly provide professional services to the City in connection with the Matter described above: the individual's position in the Reporting Firm and tlie role he or she will fill in the Matter, gender, and race or ethnicity. Individuals' names need not be disclosed.
Individual # Position and Role Gender Race/Ethnicity
Steven J. Gray Partner; Transaction Attorney White
Miles Plaskett Partner; Transaction Attorney (m)f African-American
Robert L. Archie, Jr. Partner; Reviewing Attorney (m)f African-American
Meredith E. Carpenter Associate; Transaction Attorney m(f) White
M F
(If needed, please use additional sheets to identify additional personnel.)
By signing below, 1 represent under penally of perjury that: (1) I am authorized to act on behalf of the Reporting Firm, and (2) the information in this Affidavit and associated attachment are true, complete, and correct.
By signing below, 1 understand and acknowledge, on behalf of the Reporting Firm, that failure to accurately and completely supply the information requested herein may result in a declaration of ineligibility to participate in future Matters for the City of Chicago.
:: Steven J. Gray
Printed Name: Steven J. G^ay Signature: ^^]J/lS> Title: Partner Date: June 8, 2015
DM3\334367S.I
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
Legal name ofthe Disclosing Party submitting this EDS. Include d/b/a/ if applicable: Shanahan & Shanahan LLP
Check ONE of the following three boxes:
Indicate whether the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is:
[x] the Applicant
OR
[] a legal entity holding a direct or indirect interest in the Applicant. State the legal name of the
Applicant in which the Disclosing Party holds an interest:
OR
3. [ ] a legal entity with a right of control (see Section II.B.L) State the legal name of the entity in
which the Disclosing Party holds a right of control:
Business address of the Disclosing Party: 230 W. Monroe St. Suite 2620
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312.263.0607 Fax: 312.263.0611 Email: jdshanahan@lawbyshanahan.com
Name of contact person: James D. Shanahan
Federal Employer Identification No. (if you have one):
Brief description of contract, transaction or other undertaking (referred to below as the "Matter") to which this EDS pertains. (Include project number and location of property, if applicable):
General Obligation Refinancing Bonds, Series 2015
Which City agency or department is requesting this EDS? Department of Finance
Ifthe Matter is a contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, please complete the following:
Specification # and Contract #
Page 1 of 13
SECTION II -
- DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
A. NATURE OF THE DISCLOSING PARTY 1. Indicate the nature of the Disclosing Party:
[ ] Person [ ]
[ ] Publicly registered business corporation ยง<]
[ ] Privately held business corporation [ ]
[ ] Sole proprietorship [ ]
[ ] General partnership (Is
[ J Limited partnership
[ 3 Trust [ ]
Limited liability company
Limited liability partnership
Joint venture
Not-for-profit corporation
the not-for-profit corporation also a 501(c)(3))?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Other (please specify)
2. For legal entities, the state (or foreign country) of incorporation or organization, if applicable: Illinois
3. For legal entities not organized in the State of Illinois: Has the organization registered to do business in the State of Illinois as a foreign entity?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [x] N/A
B. IF THE DISCLOSING PARTY IS A LEGAL ENTITY:
1. List below the full names and titles of all executive officers and all directors of the entity. NOTE: For not-for-profit corporations, also list below all members, if any, which are legal entities. If there are no such members, write "no members." For trusts, estates or other similar entities, list below the legal titleholder(s).
If the entity is a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership orjoint venture, list below the name and title of each general partner, managing member, manager or any other person or entity that controls the day-to-day management of the Disclosing Party. NOTE: Each legal entity listed below must submit an EDS on its own behalf.
Name Title
Rebecca M. Shanahan Managing Partner
James D. Shanahan ; Partner
James A. Shanahan Of Counsel
2. Please provide the following information concerning each person or entity having a direct or indirect beneficial interest (including ownership) in excess of 7.5% ofthe Disclosing Party. Examples ofsuch an interest include shares in a corporation, partnership interest in a partnership orjoint venture,
Page 2 of 13
interest ofa member or manager in a limited liability company, or interest of a beneficiary of a trust, estate or other similar entity. If none, state "None." NOTE: Pursuant lo Section 2-154-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Municipal Code"), the City may require any such additional information from any applicant which is reasonably intended to achieve full disclosure.
Name Business Address Percentage Interest in the
Disclosing Party
Rebecca M. Shanahan 230 W. Monroe St. Suite 2620, Chicago, IL 60606 75%
James P. Shanahan 230 W. Monroe St. Suite 2620, Chicago, IL 60606 25%
SECTION III - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Has the Disclosing Party had a "business relationship," as defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code, with any City elected official in the 12 months before the date this EDS is signed?
[ ] Yes [X] No
If yes, please identify below the name(s) of such City elected official(s) and describe such relationship(s):
SECTION IV - DISCLOSURE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER RETAINED PARTIES
The Disclosing Party must disclose the name and business address of each subcontractor, attorney, lobbyist, accountant, consultant and any other person or entity whom the Disclosing Party has retained or expects to retain in connection with the Matter, as well as the nature of the relationship, and the total amount of the fees paid or estimated to be paid. The Disclosing Party is not required to disclose employees who are paid solely through the Disclosing Party's regular payroll.
"Lobbyist" means any person or entity who undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action on behalf of any person or entity other than: (1) a not-for-profit entity, on an unpaid basis, or (2) himself. "Lobbyist" also means any person or entity any part of whose duties as an employee of another includes undertaking to influence any legislative or administrative action.
Ifthe Disclosing Party is uncertain whether a disclosure is required under this Section, the Disclosing Party must either ask the City whether disclosure is required or make the disclosure.
Page 3 of 13
Name (indicate whether Business Relationship to Disclosing Party Pees (indicate whether
retained or anticipated Address (subcontractor, attorney, paid or estimated.) NOTE:
to be retained) lobbyist, etc.) "hourly rate" or "t.b.d." is
not an acceptable response.
NONE
(Add sheets if necessary)
[x] Check here if the Disclosing Party has not retained, nor expects to retain, any such persons or entities. SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS
COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE
Under Municipal Code Section 2-92-415, substantial owners of business entities that contract with the City must remain in compliance with their child support obligations throughout the contract's term.
Has any person who directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe Disclosing Party been declared in arrearage on any child support obligations by any Illinois court of competent jurisdiction?
[ ] Yes |X] No [ ] No person directly or indirectly owns 10% or more ofthe
Disclosing Party.
If "Yes," has the person entered into a court-approved agreement for payment of all support owed and is the person in compliance with that agreement?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
FURTHER CERTIFICATIONS
1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1-23, Article I ("Article I")(which the Applicant should consult for defined terms (e.g., "doing business") and legal requirements), if the Disclosing Party submitting this EDS is the Applicant and is doing business with the City, then the Disclosing Party certifies as follows: (i) neither the Applicant nor any controlling person is currently indicted or charged with, or has admitted guilt of, or has ever been convicted of, or placed under supervision for, any criminal offense involving actual, attempted, or conspiracy to commit bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, perjury, dishonesty or deceit against an officer or employee ofthe City or any sister agency; and (ii) the Applicant understands and acknowledges that compliance with Article I is a continuing requirement for doing business with the City. NOTE: If Article I applies to the Applicant, the permanent compliance timeframe in Article I supersedes some five-year compliance timeframes in certifications 2 and 3 below.
Page 4 of 13
2. The Disclosing Party and, ifthe Disclosing Party is a legal entity, all of those persons or entities identified in Section II.B.l. of this EDS:
are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from any transactions by any federal, state or local unit of government;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted of a criminal offense, adjudged guilty, or had a civil judgment rendered against them in connection with: obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes; fraud; embezzlement; theft; forgery; bribery; falsification or destruction of records; making false statements; or receiving stolen property;
are not presently indicted for, or criminally or civilly charged by, a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with committing any of the offenses set forth in clause B.2.b. of this Section V;
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or'local) terminated for cause or default; and
have not, within a five-year period preceding the date of this EDS, been convicted, adjudged guilty, or found liable in a civil proceeding, or in any criminal or civil action, including actions concerning environmental violations, instituted by the City or by the federal government, any state, or any other unit of local government.
3. The certifications in subparts 3, 4 and 5 concern:
the Disclosing Party;
any "Contractor" (meaning any contractor or subcontractor used by the Disclosing Party in connection with the Matter, including but not limited to all persons or legal entities disclosed under Section IV, "Disclosure of Subcontractors and Other Retained Parties");
any "Affiliated Entity" (meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly: controls the Disclosing Party, is controlled by the Disclosing Party, or is, with the Disclosing Party, under common control of another person or entity. Indicia of control include, without limitation: interlocking management or ownership; identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment; common use of employees; or organization of a business entity following the ineligibility of a business entity to do business with federal or state or local government, including the City, using substantially the same management, ownership, or principals as the ineligible entity); with respect to Contractors, the term Affiliated Entity means a person or entity that directly or indirectly controls the Contractor, is controlled by it, or, with the Contractor, is under common control of another person or entity;
any responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity or any other official, agent or employee of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity, acting pursuant to the direction or authorization of a responsible official of the Disclosing Party, any Contractor or any Affiliated Entity (collectively "Agents").
Page5 of 13
Neither the Disclosing Party, nor any Contractor, nor any Affiliated Entity of cither the Disclosing Party or any Contractor nor any Agents have, during the five years before the date this EDS is signed, or, with respect to a Contractor, an Affiliated Entity, or an Affiliated Entity ofa Contractor during the five years before the date of such Contractor's or Affiliated Entity's contract or engagement in connection with the Matter:
bribed or attempted to bribe, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of bribery or attempting to bribe, a public officer or employee of the City, the State of Illinois, or any agency of the federal government or of any state or local government in the United States of America, in that officer's or employee's official capacity;
agreed or colluded with other bidders or prospective bidders, or been a party to any such agreement, or been convicted or adjudged guilty of agreement or collusion among bidders or prospective bidders, in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid a fixed price or otherwise; or
made an admission of such conduct described in a. or b. above that is a matter of record, but have not been prosecuted for such conduct; or
violated the provisions of Municipal Code Section 2-92-610 (Living Wage Ordinance).
Neither the Disclosing Party, Affiliated Entity or Contractor, or any of their employees, officials, agents or partners, is barred from contracting with any unit of state or local government as a result of engaging in or being convicted of (1) bid-rigging in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-3; (2) bid-rotating in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33E-4; or (3) any similar offense of any state or of the United States of America that contains the same elements as the offense of bid-rigging or bid-rotating.
Neither the Disclosing Party nor any Affiliated Entity is listed on any ofthe following lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ofthe U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Industry and Security ofthe U.S. Department of Commerce or their successors: the Specially Designated Nationals List, the Denied Persons List, the Unverified List, the Entity List and the Debarred List.
The Disclosing Party understands and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapters 2-55 (Legislative Inspector General), 2-56 (Inspector General) and 2-156 (Governmental Ethics) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party is unable to certify to any of the above statements in this Part B (Further Certifications), the Disclosing Party must explain below:
Page 6 of 13
Ifthe letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
8. To the best of the Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all current employees ofthe Disclosing Party who were, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, an employee, or elected or appointed official, ofthe City of Chicago (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). NONE
9. To the best ofthe Disclosing Party's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, the following is a complete list of all gifts that the Disclosing Party has given or caused to be given, at any time during the 12-month period preceding the execution date of this EDS, to an employee, or elected or appointed official, of the City of Chicago. For purposes of this statement, a "gift" does not include: (i) anything made generally available to City employees or to the general public, or (ii) food or drink provided in the course of official City business and having a retail value of less than $20 per recipient (if none, indicate with "N/A" or "none"). As to any gift listed below, please also list the name of the City recipient.
NONE
C. CERTIFICATION OF STATUS AS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
The Disclosing Party certifies that the Disclosing Party (check one)
[ ] is [x] is not
a "financial institution" as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code.
If the Disclosing Party IS a financial institution, then the Disclosing Party pledges:
"We are not and will not become a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We further pledge that none of our affiliates is, and none of them will become, a predatory lender as defined in Chapter 2-32 of the Municipal Code. We understand that becoming a predatory lender or becoming an affiliate of a predatory lender may result in the loss of the privilege of doing business with the City."
Ifthe Disclosing Party is unable to make this pledge because it or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section 2-32-455(b) of the Municipal Code) is a predatory lender within the meaning of Chapter 2-32 ofthe Municipal Code, explain here (attach additional pages if necessary):
Page 7 of 13
If the letters "NA," the word "None," or no response appears on the lines above, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party certified to the above statements.
D. CERTIFICATION REGARDING INTEREST IN CITY BUSINESS
Any words or terms that are defined in Chapter 2-156 ofthe Municipal Code have the same meanings when used in this Part D.
In accordance with Section 2-156-110 ofthe Municipal Code: Does any official or employee of the City have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the Matter?
[ ] Yes [x] No
NOTE: Ifyou checked "Yes" to Item D.l., proceed to Items D.2. and D.3. If you checked "No" to Item D.l., proceed to Part E.
Unless sold pursuant to a process of competitive bidding, or otherwise permitted, no City elected official or employee shall have a financial interest in his or her own name or in the name of any other person or entity in the purchase of any property that (i) belongs to the City, or (ii) is sold for taxes or assessments, or (iii) is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the City (collectively, "City Property Sale"). Compensation for property taken pursuant to the City's eminent domain power does not constitute a financial interest within the meaning of this Part D.
Does the Matter involve a City Property Sale?
[ ] Yes [x] No
If you checked "Yes" to Item D.l., provide the names and business addresses of the City officials or employees having such interest and identify the nature of such interest:
Name Business Address Nature of Interest
4. The Disclosing Party further certifies that no prohibited financial interest in the Matter will be acquired by any City official or employee.
E. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SLAVERY ERA BUSINESS
Please check either 1. or 2. below. If the Disclosing Party checks 2., the Disclosing Party must disclose below or in an attachment to this EDS all information required by paragraph 2. Failure to
Page 8 of 13
comply with these disclosure requirements may make any contract entered into with the City in connection wilh the Matter voidable by the Cily.
X 1. The Disclosing Party verifies that the Disclosing Party has searched any and all records of the Disclosing Party and any and all predecessor entities regarding records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies during the slavery era (including insurance policies issued to slaveholders that provided coverage for damage to or injury or death of their slaves), and the Disclosing Party has found no such records.
2. The Disclosing Party verifies that, as a result of conducting the search in step 1 above, the
Disclosing Party has found records of investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. The Disclosing Party verifies that the following constitutes full disclosure of all such records, including the names of any and all slaves or slaveholders described in those records:
SECTION VI - CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATTERS
NOTE: If the Matter is federally funded, complete this Section VI. Ifthe Matter is not federally funded, proceed to Section VII. For purposes of this Section VI, tax credits allocated by the City and proceeds of debt obligations of the City are not federal funding.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
1. List below the names of all persons or entities registered under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter: (Add sheets if necessary):
(If no explanation appears or begins on the lines above, or if the letters "NA" or if the word "None" appear, it will be conclusively presumed that the Disclosing Party means that NO persons or entities registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 have made lobbying contacts on behalf of the Disclosing Party with respect to the Matter.)
2. The Disclosing Party has not spent and will not expend any federally appropriated funds to pay any person or entity listed in Paragraph A.l. above for his or her lobbying activities or to pay any person or entity to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, as defined by applicable federal law, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress, in connection with the award of any federally funded contract, making any federally funded grant or loan, entering into any cooperative agreement, or to extend, continue, renew, amend, or modify any federally funded contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
Page 9 of 13
The Disclosing Party will submit an updated certification al the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy of the statements and information set forth in paragraphs A.l. and A.2. above.
The Disclosing Party certifies that cither: (i) it is not an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (ii) it is an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but has not engaged and will not engage in "Lobbying Activities".
If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party must obtain certifications equal in form and substance to paragraphs A.L through A.4. above from all subcontractors before it awards any subcontract and the Disclosing Party must maintain all such subcontractors' certifications for the duration of the Matter and must make such certifications promptly available to the City upon request.
B. CERTIFICATION REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
If the Matter is federally funded, federal regulations require the Applicant and all proposed subcontractors to submit the following information with their bids or in writing at the outset of negotiations.
Is the Disclosing Party the Applicant?
[I Yes [ ] No
If "Yes," answer the three questions below:
Have you developed and do you have on file affirmative action programs pursuant to applicable federal regulations? (See 41 CFR Part 60-2.)
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission all reports due under the applicable filing requirements?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Have you participated in any previous contracts or subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Ifyou checked "No" to question 1. or 2. above, please provide an explanation:
Page 10 of 13
SECTION VII - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, CONTRACT INCORPORATION, COMPLIANCE, PENALTIES, DISCLOSURE
The Disclosing Party understands and agrees that:
The certifications, disclosures, and acknowledgments contained in this EDS will become part of any contract or other agreement between the Applicant and the City in connection with the Matter, whether procurement, City assistance, or other City action, and are material inducements to the City's execution of any contract or taking other action with respect to the Matter. The Disclosing Party understands that it must comply with all statutes, ordinances, and regulations on which this EDS is based.
The City's Governmental Ethics and Campaign Financing Ordinances, Chapters 2-156 and 2-164 of the Municipal Code, impose certain duties and obligations on persons or entities seeking City contracts, work, business, or transactions. The full text of these ordinances and a training program is available on line at www.cityofchicago.org/Ethics , and may also be obtained from the City's Board of Ethics, 740 N.
Sedgwick St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60610, (312) 744-9660. The Disclosing Party must comply fully with the applicable ordinances.
Ifthe City determines that any information provided in this EDS is false, incomplete or inaccurate, any contract or other agreement in connection with which it is submitted may be rescinded or be void or voidable, and the City may pursue any remedies under the contract or agreement (if not rescinded or void), at law, or in equity, including terminating the Disclosing Party's participation in the Matter and/or declining to allow the Disclosing Party to participate in other transactions with the City. Remedies at law for a false statement of material fact may include incarceration and an award to the City of treble damages.
It is the City's policy to make this document available to the public on its Internet site and/or upon request. Some or all of the information provided on this EDS and any attachments to this EDS may be made available to the public on the Internet, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, or otherwise. By completing and signing this EDS, the Disclosing Party waives and releases any possible rights or claims which it may have against the City in connection with the public release of infonnation contained in this EDS and also authorizes the City to verify the accuracy of any information submitted in this EDS.
E. The information provided in this EDS must be kept current. In the event of changes, the Disclosing
Party must supplement this EDS up to the time the City takes action on the Matter. If the Matter is a
contract being handled by the City's Department of Procurement Services, the Disclosing Party must
update this EDS as the contract requires. NOTE: With respect to Matters subject to Article I of
Chapter 1-23 ofthe Municipal Code (imposing PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY for certain specified
offenses), the information provided herein regarding eligibility must be kept current for a longer period,
as required by Chapter 1-23 and Section 2-154-020 ofthe Municipal Code.
The Disclosing Party represents and warrants that:
Page 11 of 13
F.l. The Disclosing Party is not delinquent in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue, nor are the Disclosing Party or ils Affiliated Entities delinquent in paying any fine, fee, lax or other charge owed to the City. This includes, but is not limited to, all water charges, sewer charges, license fees, parking tickets, property taxes or sales taxes.
F.2 Ifthe Disclosing Party is the Applicanl, the Disclosing Party and its Affiliated Entities will not use, nor permit their subcontractors to use, any facility listed by the U.S. E.P.A. on the federal Excluded Parties List System ("EPLS") maintained by the U. S. General Services Administration.
F.3 If the Disclosing Party is the Applicant, the Disclosing Party will obtain from any contractors/subcontractors hired or to be hired in connection with the Matter certifications equal in form and substance to those in F.L and F.2. above and will not, without the prior written consent of the City, use any such contractor/subcontractor that docs not provide such certifications or that the Disclosing Party has reason to believe has nol provided or cannot provide truthful certifications.
NOTE: If the Disclosing Party cannot certify as to any ofthe items in F.L. F.2. or F.3. above, an explanatory statement musl be attached to this EDS.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, the person signing below: (1) warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) on behalf ofthe Disclosing Party, and (2) warrants that all certifications and statements contained in this EDS and Appendix A (if applicable) arc true, accurate and complete as ofthe date furnished to the City.
Shanahan & Shanahan LLP (Prin^or^y^^
(^igrfhe^e)^
James D. Shanahan
(Print or type name of person signing)
Partner
(Print or type title of person signing)
Signed and swom to before me on (date) at (2a-&/^- County, \JUIx^j>*-^? (stale).
Notary~PubIic.
Commission expircs:_
Page 12 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AjND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX A
FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent. It is not to be completed by any legal entity which has only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Under Municipal Code Section 2-154-015, the Disclosing Party must disclose whether such Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently has a "familial relationship" with any elected city official or department head. A "familial relationship" exists if, as of the date this EDS is signed, the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof is related to the mayor, any alderman, the city clerk, the city treasurer or any city department head as spouse or domestic partner or as any of the following, whether by blood or adoption: parent, child, brother or sister, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather or stepmother, stepson or stepdaughter, stepbrother or stepsister or half-brother or half-sister.
"Applicable Party" means (1) all executive officers ofthe Disclosing Party listed in Section HB.l.a., if the Disclosing Party is a corporation; all partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a general partnership; all general partners and limited partners of the Disclosing Party, if the Disclosing Party is a limited partnership: all managers, managing members and members ofthe Disclosing Party, ifthe Disclosing Party is a limited liability company; (2) all principal officers of the Disclosing Party; and (3) any person having more than a 7.5 percent ownership interest in the Disclosing Party. "Principal officers" means the president, chief operating officer, executive director, chief financial officer, treasurer or secretary of a legal entity or any person exercising similar authority.
Does the Disclosing Party or any "Applicable Party" or any Spouse or Domestic Partner thereof currently have a "familial relationship" with an elected city official or department head?
[]Yes [x]No
If yes, please identify below (1) the name and title of such person, (2) the name of the legal entity to which such person is connected; (3) the name and title of the elected city official or department head to whom such person has a familial relationship, and (4) the precise nature ofsuch familial relationship.
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT
APPENDIX B
BUILDING CODE SCOFFLAW/PROBLEM LANDLORD CERTIFICATION
This Appendix is to be completed only by (a) the Applicant, and (b) any legal entity which has a direct ownership interest in the Applicant exceeding 7.5 percent (an "Owner"). It is not to be completed by any legal entity which lias only an indirect ownership interest in the Applicant.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-154-010, is the Applicant or any Owner identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 of the Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [x]No
If the Applicant is a legal entity publicly traded on any exchange, is any officer or director of the Applicant identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord pursuant to Section 2-92-416 ofthe Municipal Code?
[ ]Yes [ ]No [x ] Not Applicable
3. If yes to (1) or (2) above, please identify below the name of the person or legal entity
identified as a building code scofflaw or problem landlord and the address of the building or buildings to which the pertinent code violations apply.
FILLING OUT THIS APPENDIX B CONSTITUTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT THAT THIS APPENDIX B IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO, AND MADE A PART OF, THE ASSOCIATED EDS, AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THIS APPENDIX B ARE SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATED EDS.
AFFIDAVIT
DEBT OBLIGATION AND BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS
Name of Reporting Finn: Shanahan & Shanahan LLP
Description of Matter: General Obligation Refinancing Bonds, Series 2015
Role of Reporting Firm: Co-Disclosure Counsel
This affidavit is submitted in conjunction wilh (check one):
X a City of Chicago debt obligation transaction (Municipal Code Section 2-154-017)
brokerage services for the City Treasurer (Municipal Code Section 2-154-018)
Fill out below (and attach additional sheets using the same format, if necessary), the following information for each person in the Reporting Firm who will directly provide professional services to the City in connection with the Matter described above: the individual's position In the Reporting Firm and the role he or she will fill in the Matter, gender, and race or ethnicity. Individuals' names need not be disclosed.
Individual # Position and Role Gender Race/Ethnicity |109|Managing Partner - Disclosure Counsel m(j) W |109|Partner - Disclosure Counsel (m) F W |109|Of Counsel - Disclosure Counsel @ F W
M F
M F
(Ifneeded, please use additional sheets to identify additional personnel.)
By signing below, I represent under penalty of perjury that: (1) I am authorized to act on behalf of the Reporting Firm, and (2) the information in this Affidavit and associated attachment are true, complete, and correct.
6/8/2015
By signing below, I understand and acknowledge, on behalf of the Reporting Firm, that failure to accurately and d&Wletely supply the information requested herein may result in a declaration of ineligibility to/gayticipate in future Matters for the City of Chicago.
|