Other Contingencies

 (unaudited)

Litigation

The Group operates in a legal and regulatory environment that exposes it to significant litigation risks. As a result, the Group is involved in litigation, arbitration and regulatory proceedings and investigations in Germany and in a number of jurisdictions outside Germany, including the United States, arising in the ordinary course of business. The legal and regulatory claims for which the Group has taken material provisions or for which there are material contingent liabilities that are more than remote are described below; similar matters are grouped together and some matters consist of a number of claims. These and other matters have the potential to result in the imposition of significant financial and other consequences for the Bank. The estimated loss in respect of each, where such an estimate can be made, has not been disclosed for individual matters because the Group has concluded that such disclosure can be expected to seriously prejudice their outcome. Note 29 “Provisions” of the Group’s Financial Report 2013 describes how the Group estimates provisions and expected losses in respect of its contingent liabilities, and the uncertainties and limitations inherent in such process. For these and other matters that may have a significant impact on the Group and for which an estimate can be made, the Group currently estimates that, as of September 30, 2014, the aggregate future loss of which the possibility is more than remote but less than probable is approximately € 1.7 billion (December 31, 2013: € 1.5 billion). This figure includes contingent liabilities on matters where the Group’s potential liability is joint and several and where the Group expects any such liability to be paid by a third party.

The Group may settle litigation or regulatory proceedings prior to a final judgment or determination of liability. It may do so to avoid the cost, management efforts or negative business, regulatory or reputational consequences of continuing to contest liability, even when the Group believes it has valid defenses to liability. It may also do so when the potential consequences of failing to prevail would be disproportionate to the costs of settlement. Furthermore, the Group may, for similar reasons, reimburse counterparties for their losses even in situations where it does not believe that it is legally compelled to do so.

Credit Default Swap Antitrust Matters. On July 1, 2013, the European Commission (EC) issued a Statement of Objections (the “SO”) against Deutsche Bank, Markit Group Limited (Markit), the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (ISDA), and twelve other banks alleging anti-competitive conduct under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement (the “EEA Agreement”). The SO sets forth preliminary conclusions of the EC that (i) attempts by certain entities to engage in exchange trading of unfunded credit derivatives were foreclosed by improper collective action in the period from 2006 through 2009, and (ii) the conduct of Markit, ISDA, Deutsche Bank and the twelve other banks constituted a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. If the EC finally concludes that infringement occurred, it may seek to impose fines and other remedial measures on Deutsche Bank, Markit, ISDA and the twelve other banks. Deutsche Bank filed a response contesting the EC’s preliminary conclusions in January 2014. Deutsche Bank and other SO addressees presented orally the key elements of their responses at an oral hearing in May 2014. Following the oral hearing, the EC announced its intention to carry out a further investigation of the facts. The EC Commissioner has stated that he does not expect the EC’s investigation to be concluded in 2014.

Antitrust Litigation regarding Credit Default Swaps. A multi-district civil class action is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Deutsche Bank and numerous other credit default swap (CDS) dealer banks, as well as Markit and ISDA. Plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended class action complaint on April 11, 2014 alleging that the banks conspired with Markit and ISDA to prevent the establishment of exchange-traded CDS, with the effect of raising prices for over-the-counter CDS transactions. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of individuals and entities located in the United States or abroad who, during a period from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2013, directly purchased CDS from or directly sold CDS to the dealer defendants in the United States. Defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended class action complaint on May 23, 2014. On September 4, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. Discovery on plaintiffs’ remaining claims is ongoing.

Credit Correlation. Certain regulatory authorities are investigating Deutsche Bank’s bespoke credit correlation trading book and certain risks within that book, during the credit crisis. Issues being examined include the methodology used to value positions in the book as well as the robustness of controls governing the application of valuation methodologies. Deutsche Bank is cooperating with those investigations.

FX Investigations and Litigations. Deutsche Bank has received requests for information from certain regulatory authorities globally who are investigating trading in the foreign exchange market. The Bank is cooperating with these investigations. Relatedly, Deutsche Bank is conducting its own internal global review of foreign exchange trading. In connection with this review, the Bank has taken, and will continue to take, disciplinary action with regards to individuals if merited. Deutsche Bank is also named as a defendant in three putative class actions brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging antitrust claims relating to the alleged manipulation of foreign exchange rates.

High Frequency Trading. Deutsche Bank has received requests for information from certain regulatory authorities related to high frequency trading. The Bank is cooperating with these requests. Deutsche Bank was initially named as a defendant in putative class action complaints alleging violations of U.S. securities laws related to high frequency trading, but in their consolidated amended complaint filed September 2, 2014, the plaintiffs did not include Deutsche Bank as a defendant.

Interbank Offered Rates Matters. Deutsche Bank has received subpoenas and requests for information from various regulatory and law enforcement agencies in Europe, North America and Asia Pacific in connection with industry-wide investigations concerning the setting of London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), Euro Interbank Offered Rate (EURIBOR), Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate (TIBOR) and other interbank offered rates. Deutsche Bank is cooperating with these investigations.

On December 4, 2013, Deutsche Bank announced that it had reached a settlement with the European Commission as part of a collective settlement to resolve the European Commission’s investigations in relation to anticompetitive conduct in the trading of Euro interest rate derivatives and Yen interest rate derivatives. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay € 466 million for the Euro interest rate derivatives and € 259 million for the Yen interest rate derivatives matters, respectively, or € 725 million in total. The settlement amount was already substantially reflected in Deutsche Bank’s existing litigation reserves, and no material additional reserves were necessary. The settlement amount reflects the high market share held by Deutsche Bank in certain of the markets investigated by the European Commission. Deutsche Bank remains exposed to civil litigation and further regulatory action relating to these benchmarks.

Deutsche Bank has been informed by certain of the authorities investigating these matters that proceedings against Deutsche Bank will be recommended with respect to some aspects of the matters under investigation, and Deutsche Bank is engaged in discussions with those authorities about potential resolution of those aspects. It is not currently possible to predict the ultimate resolution of the issues covered by the various investigations and lawsuits, including the timing and the scale of the potential impact of any resolution.

In the period from mid-2012 to autumn 2014, five financial institutions entered into settlements with the U.K. Financial Services Authority, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). While the terms of the various settlements differed, they all involved significant financial penalties and regulatory consequences. For example, three financial institutions’ settlements included a Deferred Prosecution Agreement, pursuant to which the DOJ agreed to defer prosecution of criminal charges against the applicable entity provided that the financial institution satisfies the terms of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. The terms of the other two financial institutions’ settlements included Non-Prosecution Agreements, pursuant to which the DOJ agreed not to file criminal charges against the entities so long as certain conditions are met. In addition, affiliates of two of the financial institutions agreed to plead guilty to a crime in a United States court for related conduct.

A number of civil actions, including putative class actions, are pending in federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) against Deutsche Bank and numerous other banks. All but two of these actions were filed on behalf of parties who allege that they held or transacted in U.S. Dollar LIBOR-based derivatives or other financial instruments and sustained losses as a result of purported collusion or manipulation by the defendants relating to the setting of U.S. Dollar LIBOR. With one exception, all of the civil actions pending in the SDNY concerning U.S. Dollar LIBOR are being coordinated as part of a multidistrict litigation (U.S. Dollar LIBOR MDL). In March 2013, the court dismissed the federal and state antitrust claims, claims asserted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and certain state law claims that had been asserted in six amended complaints. Appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit were dismissed as premature; the United States Supreme Court has granted a writ of certiorari filed by plaintiffs in one of the actions seeking review of the Second Circuit’s dismissal and will consider the question of whether the appeal should be heard by the Court of Appeals now. Additional complaints relating to the alleged manipulation of U.S. Dollar LIBOR have been filed in, removed to, or transferred to the SDNY and are being coordinated as part of the U.S. Dollar LIBOR MDL. The court issued a decision in June 2014 addressing various matters pending before it at the time and is now considering motions to create certain interim putative classes. Various plaintiffs proceeding in their individual capacities (i.e., non-class actions) have filed amended complaints, and the parties are briefing motions to dismiss. An additional action concerning U.S. Dollar LIBOR is independently pending in the SDNY and is subject to a pending motion to dismiss. Finally, the Bank has also been named as a defendant in a civil action pending in the Central District of California concerning U.S. Dollar LIBOR; a motion to dismiss is being briefed.

A putative class action was filed against Deutsche Bank and other banks concerning the alleged manipulation of Yen LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR. On March 28, 2014, the SDNY court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss claims asserted under U.S. federal antitrust laws and for unjust enrichment, but denied defendants’ motions as to certain claims asserted under the Commodity Exchange Act. Motions for reconsideration of the denial of defendants’ motions are pending, as are motions to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Deutsche Bank and certain other foreign defendants. Discovery in the case is currently stayed. Deutsche Bank is also a defendant in a putative class action concerning the alleged manipulation of Euribor. The court granted a motion to stay discovery through May 12, 2015. Defendants’ time to respond to that complaint has been stayed pending amendments to the complaint. Claims for damages in these cases have been asserted under various legal theories, including violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, federal and state antitrust laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and other federal and state laws.

Kirch. The public prosecutor’s office in Munich has conducted and is currently conducting criminal investigations in connection with the Kirch case with regard to former Management Board members as well as the current Management Board members Juergen Fitschen and Dr. Stephan Leithner. The Kirch case involved several civil proceedings between Deutsche Bank AG and Dr. Leo Kirch as well as media companies controlled by him. The key issue was whether an interview given by Dr. Rolf Breuer, then Spokesman of Deutsche Bank’s Management Board, in 2002 with Bloomberg television, during which Dr. Breuer commented on Dr. Kirch’s (and his companies’) inability to obtain financing, caused the insolvency of the Kirch companies. In February 2014, Deutsche Bank and the Kirch heirs reached a comprehensive settlement, which has ended all legal disputes between them.

The investigation involving current Management Board member Juergen Fitschen and several former Management Board members has been concluded. At the beginning of August 2014, an indictment was filed with the District Court of Munich against Mr. Fitschen and such former Management Board members. The public prosecutor has applied for the court to order Deutsche Bank’s secondary participation in the proceedings in regard to a potential regulatory offence pursuant to Section 30 of the German Regulatory Offences Act. The indictment was served to the former Management Board members, Mr. Fitschen and Deutsche Bank AG in September 2014.

The investigation involving current Management Board member Dr. Stephan Leithner is ongoing.

The allegations of the public prosecutors are that the two current Management Board members failed to correct in a timely manner factual statements made by Deutsche Bank’s litigation counsel in submissions filed in a civil case between Kirch and Deutsche Bank AG before the Munich Higher Regional Court and the Federal Court of Justice, after allegedly having become aware that such statements were not correct. Under German law, a party in a civil litigation is under a statutory duty to make sure all factual statements made by it in court are accurate. The investigation of Dr. Leithner and the indictment of Mr. Fitschen are based on the allegation that (unlike the other current Management Board members of the Bank) they had special knowledge or responsibility in relation to the Kirch case. The indictment regarding former Management Board members is based on the allegation that such former Management Board members gave incorrect testimony to the Munich Higher Regional Court.

The Supervisory Board and the Management Board of the Bank have obtained opinions from an international law firm and a retired president of one of the leading courts of appeal in Germany to the effect that there is no basis for the accusation of criminal wrongdoing made by the public prosecutors against Mr. Fitschen and Dr. Leithner. Deutsche Bank is fully cooperating with the Munich public prosecutor’s office.

Mortgage-Related and Asset-Backed Securities Matters and Investigation. Deutsche Bank, along with certain affiliates (collectively referred in these paragraphs to as “Deutsche Bank”), have received subpoenas and requests for information from certain regulators and government entities, including members of the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group of the U.S. Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, concerning its activities regarding the origination, purchase, securitization, sale and/or trading of mortgage loans, residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), collateralized debt obligations, other asset-backed securities and credit derivatives. Deutsche Bank is cooperating fully in response to those subpoenas and requests for information.

Deutsche Bank has been named as a defendant in a civil action brought by the Commonwealth of Virginia asserting claims for fraud and breach of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act as a result of purchases by the Virginia Retirement System of RMBS issued or underwritten by Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank is one of thirteen financial institutions named as defendants. The complaint alleges damages of $1.15 billion in the aggregate against all defendants but does not specify the damages sought from each defendant. The action was originally filed under seal by a private party and was unsealed on September 14, 2014, after the Attorney General for Virginia decided to intervene in the action.

Deutsche Bank has been named as defendant in numerous civil litigations in various roles as issuer or underwriter in offerings of RMBS and other asset-backed securities. These cases include putative class action suits, actions by individual purchasers of securities, actions by trustees on behalf of RMBS trusts, and actions by insurance companies that guaranteed payments of principal and interest for particular tranches of securities offerings. Although the allegations vary by lawsuit, these cases generally allege that the RMBS offering documents contained material misrepresentations and omissions, including with regard to the underwriting standards pursuant to which the underlying mortgage loans were issued, or assert that various representations or warranties relating to the loans were breached at the time of origination.

Deutsche Bank is a defendant in putative class actions relating to its role, along with other financial institutions, as underwriter of RMBS issued by IndyMac MBS, Inc. On September 8, 2014, Deutsche Bank, certain other financial institution defendants and lead plaintiffs executed a stipulation to settle the action. On September 30, 2014, the court issued an order certifying the class for settlement and approving notice to the class, and scheduled a final approval hearing for February 3, 2015. Under the settlement, all settling defendants will pay a total of $ 340 million. Deutsche Bank’s portion of the settlement is not material to it.

Deutsche Bank is a defendant in a putative class action relating to its role, along with other financial institutions, as underwriter of RMBS issued by Novastar Mortgage Corporation. The case is in discovery.

On December 18, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the claims against Deutsche Bank in the putative class action relating to RMBS issued by Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. and its affiliates.

Deutsche Bank is a defendant in various non-class action lawsuits and arbitrations by alleged purchasers of, and counterparties involved in transactions relating to, RMBS, and their affiliates, including Assured Guaranty Municipal Corporation, Aozora Bank, Ltd., Commerzbank AG, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (as conservator for Colonial Bank, Franklin Bank S.S.B., Guaranty Bank, Citizens National Bank and Strategic Capital Bank), the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston, the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle, HSBC Bank USA, National Association (as trustee for certain RMBS trusts), John Hancock, Knights of Columbus, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, Mass Mutual Life Insurance Company, Phoenix Light SF Limited (as purported assignee of claims of special purpose vehicles created and/or managed by WestLB AG), Royal Park Investments (as purported assignee of claims of a special-purpose vehicle created to acquire certain assets of Fortis Bank), Sealink Funding Ltd. (as purported assignee of claims of special purpose vehicles created and/or managed by Sachsen Landesbank and its subsidiaries), Texas County & District Retirement System and The Charles Schwab Corporation.

On October 2, 2014, pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement, Bayerische Landesbank dismissed with prejudice the action it had filed against Deutsche Bank. The financial terms of the settlement are not material to Deutsche Bank.

On October 1, 2014, the district court entered an order dismissing with prejudice claims brought against Deutsche Bank by Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-1 Ltd., Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-1 LLC, Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-2 Ltd., Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-2 LLC, Triaxx Prime CDO 2007-1 Ltd. and Triaxx Prime CDO 2007-1 LLC. Deutsche Bank’s understanding is that the dismissal was pursuant to a confidential settlement between the plaintiffs and certain defendants affiliated with Countrywide Securities Corporation. Deutsche Bank did not contribute to the settlement.

In the actions against Deutsche Bank solely as an underwriter of other issuers’ RMBS offerings, Deutsche Bank has contractual rights to indemnification from the issuers, but those indemnity rights may in whole or in part prove effectively unenforceable where the issuers are now or may in the future be in bankruptcy or otherwise defunct.

Deutsche Bank has entered into agreements with certain entities that have threatened to assert claims against Deutsche Bank in connection with various RMBS offerings and other related products to toll the relevant statutes of limitations. It is possible that these potential claims may have a material impact on Deutsche Bank. In addition, Deutsche Bank has entered into settlement agreements with some of these entities, the financial terms of which are not material to Deutsche Bank.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”) and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“DBTCA”) have been named as defendants in civil litigation concerning their roles as trustees of certain RMBS trusts. On June 18, 2014, a group of investors filed a civil action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA’s alleged failure to perform their duties as trustees for the trusts. Plaintiffs have since filed an amended complaint. On June 18, 2014, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a purported class action on behalf of investors in 10 RMBS trusts against DBNTC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims for alleged violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract and breach of trust based on DBNTC’s alleged failure to perform its duties as trustee for the trusts. DBNTC has moved to dismiss the complaint.

Precious metals. Deutsche Bank has received requests for information from certain regulatory authorities related to precious metal benchmarks. The Bank is cooperating with those requests. Deutsche Bank is also named as a defendant in several putative class action complaints alleging violations of U.S. antitrust law and the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act related to alleged manipulation of gold and silver prices through participation in the Gold and Silver Fixes.

U.S. Embargoes-Related Matters. Deutsche Bank has received requests for information from certain regulatory and law enforcement agencies concerning its historical processing of U.S. Dollar payment orders through U.S. financial institutions for parties from countries subject to U.S. embargo laws. These agencies are investigating whether such processing complied with U.S. federal and state laws. In 2006, Deutsche Bank voluntarily decided that it would not engage in new U.S. Dollar business with counterparties in Iran, Sudan, North Korea and Cuba and with certain Syrian banks, and to exit existing U.S. Dollar business with such counterparties to the extent legally possible. In 2007, Deutsche Bank decided that it would not engage in any new business, in any currency, with counterparties in Iran, Syria, Sudan and North Korea and to exit existing business, in any currency, with such counterparties to the extent legally possible; it also decided to limit its non-U.S. Dollar business with counterparties in Cuba. Deutsche Bank is providing information to and otherwise cooperating with these agencies in their investigations.

Mortgage Repurchase Demands

From 2005 through 2008, as part of Deutsche Bank’s U.S. residential mortgage loan business, Deutsche Bank sold approximately U.S.$ 84 billion of private label securities and U.S.$ 71 billion of loans through whole loan sales. Deutsche Bank has been presented with demands to repurchase loans from or to indemnify purchasers, investors or financial insurers with respect to losses allegedly caused by material breaches of representations and warranties. Deutsche Bank’s general practice is to process valid repurchase demands that are presented in compliance with contractual rights.

As of September 30, 2014, Deutsche Bank has approximately U.S.$ 4.5 billion of mortgage repurchase demands outstanding and not subject to agreements to rescind (based on original principal balance of the loans). These demands consist primarily of demands made in respect of private label securitizations by the trustees or servicers thereof. Against these outstanding demands, Deutsche Bank recorded provisions of U.S.$ 514 million (€ 407 million) as of September 30, 2014.

As of September 30, 2014, Deutsche Bank has completed repurchases, obtained agreements to rescind and otherwise settled claims on loans with an original principal balance of approximately U.S.$ 5.0 billion. In connection with those repurchases, agreements and settlements, Deutsche Bank has obtained releases for potential claims on approximately U.S.$ 66.0 billion of loans sold by Deutsche Bank as described above.

Deutsche Bank has entered into agreements with certain entities that have threatened to assert mortgage loan repurchase demands against Deutsche Bank to toll the relevant statutes of limitations. It is possible that these potential demands may have a material impact on Deutsche Bank.

Deutsche Bank anticipates that additional mortgage repurchase demands may be made in respect of mortgage loans that it has sold, but cannot reliably estimate their timing or amount, which can be influenced by, among other things, court decisions on when the statute of limitations on breaches of representations and warranties accrues including in an appeal pending before the New York Court of Appeal with respect to a residential mortgage-backed security issued by Deutsche Bank.