{"url_path":"/sec/cik-0001066656/10-q/2026/item-1","section_key":"item-1","section_title":"Item 1 Legal Proceedings.","topic":"sec","document":{"doc_type":"10-Q","doc_date":"2026-05-12","source_url":"https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1066656/0001193125-26-218624-index.html","accession_number":"0001193125-26-218624","cik":"0001066656","ticker":null,"issuer_name":"Ceres Classic L.P.","edgar_url":"https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1066656/0001193125-26-218624-index.html","primary_entity_key":"0001066656","primary_entity_name":"Ceres Classic L.P."},"word_count":2117,"has_tables":true,"body_markdown":"Item 1. Legal Proceedings.\n\nThis section describes the major pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business, to which Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC or its subsidiaries is a party or to which any of their property is subject. There are no material legal proceedings pending against the Partnership or the General Partner.\n\nOn June 1, 2011, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated converted from a Delaware corporation to a Delaware limited liability company. As a result of that conversion, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated is now named Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (“MS&Co.” or “the Company”).\n\nThe Company is a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, a Delaware holding company. Morgan Stanley files periodic reports with the SEC as required by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) which include current descriptions of material litigation and material proceedings and investigations, if any, by governmental and/or regulatory agencies or self-regulatory organizations concerning Morgan Stanley and its subsidiaries, including the Company. As a consolidated subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, the Company does not file its own periodic reports with the SEC that contain descriptions of material litigation, proceedings and investigations. As a result, we refer you to the “Legal Proceedings” section of Morgan Stanley’s SEC 10-K filings for 2025, 2024, 2023, 2022, and 2021. In addition, the Company annually prepares an Audited, Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition (“Audited Financial Statement”) that is publicly available on Morgan Stanley’s website at www.morganstanley.com. We refer you to the Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies – Legal section of the Company’s 2025 Audited Financial Statement.\n\nIn addition to the matters described in those filings, in the normal course of business, each of Morgan Stanley and 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 third-party entities that are, or would otherwise be, the primary defendants in such cases are bankrupt, in financial distress, or may not honor applicable indemnification obligations. These actions have included, but are not limited to, antitrust claims, claims under various false claims act statutes, and matters arising from our Markets business, and our activities in the capital markets.\n\nEach of Morgan Stanley and the Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental or other regulatory agencies regarding the Company’s business and involving, among other matters, sales, trading, financing, prime brokerage, market-making activities, investment banking advisory services, capital market activities, financial products or offerings sponsored, underwritten, or sold by the Company, wealth and investment management services, and tax, accounting, and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, disgorgement, restitution, forfeiture, injunctions, limitations on our ability to conduct certain business, or other relief.\n\nThe 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 statement of financial condition and the Company can reasonably estimate the amount of that loss or the range of loss, the Company accrues an estimated loss by a charge to income, including with respect to certain of the individual proceedings or investigations described below.\n\n \n\n28\n\nThe Company’s legal expenses can, and may in the future, fluctuate from period to period, given the current environment regarding government or regulatory agency investigations and private litigation affecting global financial services firms, including the Company.\n\nIn many legal proceedings and investigations, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or reasonably possible, or to estimate the amount of any loss. In addition, even where the Company has determined that a loss is probable or reasonably possible or an exposure to loss or range of loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued with respect to a previously recognized loss contingency, the Company may be unable to reasonably estimate the amount of the loss or range of loss. It is particularly difficult to determine if a loss is probable or reasonably possible, or to estimate the amount of loss, where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or government entities seek substantial or indeterminate damages, restitution, forfeiture, disgorgement or penalties. Numerous issues may need to be resolved in an investigation or proceeding before a determination can be made that a loss or additional loss (or range of loss or range of additional loss) is probable or reasonably possible, or to estimate the amount of loss, including through potentially lengthy discovery or determination of important factual matters, determination of issues related to class certification, the calculation of damages or other relief, and consideration of novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings or investigations in question.\n\nThe Company has identified below any individual proceedings or investigations where the Company believes a material loss to be reasonably possible. In certain legal proceedings in which the Company has determined that a material loss is reasonably possible, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss or range of loss. There are other matters in which the Company has determined a loss or range of loss to be reasonably possible, but the Company does not believe, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that such losses could have a material adverse effect on the consolidated statement of financial condition as a whole, although the outcome of such proceedings or investigations may significantly impact the Company’s business or results of operations for any particular reporting period, or cause significant reputational harm.\n\nWhile the Company has identified below certain proceedings or investigations that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or those where potential losses have not yet been determined to be probable or reasonably possible.\n\nCivil Litigation\n\nBeginning in February of 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in multiple purported antitrust class actions now consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) styled In Re: Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Company, together with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. and New York state antitrust laws from 2008 through December of 2016 in connection with alleged efforts to prevent the development of electronic exchange-based platforms for interest rate swaps trading. Complaints were filed both on behalf of a purported class of investors who purchased interest rate swaps from defendants, as well as on behalf of three operators of swap execution facilities that allegedly were thwarted by the defendants in their efforts to develop such platforms. The consolidated complaints seek, inter alia, certification of the investor class of plaintiffs and treble damages. On July 28, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaints. On December 15, 2023, the\n\n \n\n29\n\ncourt denied the class plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On December 29, 2023, the class plaintiffs petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for leave to appeal that decision. On February 28, 2024, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the class claims. On July 17, 2025, the court granted final approval of the settlement. The claims brought by the three operators of swap execution facilities remain pending, and on March 12, 2026, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.\n\nThe Company is a defendant in three antitrust class action complaints which have been consolidated into one proceeding in the United States District Court for the SDNY under the caption City of Philadelphia, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Company, together with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust laws and relevant state laws in connection with alleged efforts to artificially inflate interest rates for Variable Rate Demand Obligations (“VRDO”). The consolidated complaint seeks, inter alia, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages. The complaint was filed on behalf of a class of municipal issuers of VRDO for which defendants served as remarketing agent. On November 2, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, dismissing state law claims, but denying dismissal of the U.S. antitrust claims. On September 21, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On February 5, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted leave to appeal that decision and, on August 1, 2025, affirmed the court’s decision. On December 1, 2025, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Second Circuit’s August 2025 decision, which the Supreme Court denied on April 20, 2026.\n\nOn February 21, 2025, the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority announced a settlement with an affiliate of the Company, as well as other financial institutions, in connection with its investigation of suspected anti-competitive arrangements in the financial services sector, specifically regarding the affiliate’s activities concerning certain liquid fixed income products between 2009 and 2012. Separately, on June 16, 2023, the affiliate and the Company, together with a number of other financial institutions, were named as defendants in a purported antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the SDNY styled Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, et al., alleging, inter alia, that they violated U.S. antitrust laws in connection with their alleged effort to fix prices of gilts traded in the United States between 2009 and 2013. The complaint seeks, inter alia, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages. On September 16, 2024, the court granted defendants’ joint motion to dismiss, and the complaint was dismissed without prejudice. In October of 2024, the affiliate, the Company, and certain other defendants reached an agreement in principle to settle the U.S. litigation. On March 17, 2025, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.\n\nOn May 17, 2013, the plaintiff in IKB 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 the State of New York, New York County. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to the 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 the plaintiff was approximately $133 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, inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages. On October 29, 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 the plaintiff by the Company was approximately $116 million.\n\n \n\n30\n\nOn August 11, 2016, the Appellate Division, affirmed the trial court’s order denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 15, 2022, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims. On March 1, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion for summary judgment, narrowing the alleged misrepresentations at issue in the case. On March 26, 2024, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment order. On August 27, 2024, the plaintiff notified the court that in light of the court’s rulings to exclude certain evidence at trial, the plaintiff could not prove its claims at trial, and requested that the court dismiss the case, subject to its right to appeal the evidentiary rulings. On August 28, 2024, the court dismissed the case, and judgment was entered in the Company’s favor. The plaintiff has appealed.\n\nAdditional lawsuits containing claims similar to those described above may be filed in the future. In the course of its business, the Company, as a major futures commission merchant, is party to various civil actions, claims and routine regulatory investigations and proceedings that the General Partner believes do not have a material effect on the business of the Company. The Company may establish reserves from time to time in connections with such actions.\n\n \n\n31"}