Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2012

Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees [Abstract]

Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

18. Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

Contingencies

In the ordinary course of business, various legal actions are brought and are pending against the Company and its affiliates in the U.S. and internationally. In some of these actions, substantial amounts are claimed. The Company is also involved, from time to time, in reviews, examinations, inspections, investigations and enforcement actions by governmental and self-regulatory agencies (both formal and informal) regarding the Company’s businesses. These matters may result in judgments, settlements, costs, fines, penalties, sanctions or other relief. The following generally does not include matters that the Company has pending against other parties which, if successful, would result in awards in favor of the Company or its subsidiaries.

Employment, Competitor-Related and Other Litigation

From time to time, the Company and its affiliates are involved in litigation, claims and arbitrations in the U.S. and internationally, relating to various employment matters, including with respect to termination of employment, hiring of employees currently or previously employed by competitors, terms and conditions of employment and other matters. In light of the competitive nature of the brokerage industry, litigation, claims and arbitration between competitors regarding employee hiring are not uncommon.

In August 2004, Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”) commenced an action in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against us. In its complaint, TT alleged that the Company infringed two of TT’s patents. TT later added eSpeed International Ltd., ECCO LLC and ECCO Ware LLC as defendants. On June 20, 2007, the Court granted eSpeed’s motion for partial summary judgment on TT’s claims of infringement covering the then current versions of certain products. As a result, the remaining products at issue in the case were the versions of the eSpeed and ECCO products that have not been on the market in the U.S. since around the end of 2004.

On June 9, 2010, TT filed in the District Court a “Motion to Enforce the Money Judgment.” The Company opposed this motion on the ground that no money judgment was entered prior to the taking of the appeal by TT. A Magistrate Judge concluded there was no money judgment, but on its own initiative recommended the District Court amend the Final Judgment to include damages in the principal amount of $2.5 million. On March 29, 2011, the District Court affirmed. The parties subsequently stipulated to a further amendment to the judgment to apportion this amount in accordance with remitted jury verdict between eSpeed. The Company reserved its rights with respect to this amended judgment and on May 27, 2011 filed an appeal of the amended judgment. On June 6, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the amended judgment; its mandate issued on July 13, 2012. The amended judgment has been satisfied, while the issue of costs remains pending before the District Court.

On February 3, 2010, TT filed another civil action against the Company in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging direct and indirect infringement of three additional patents, U.S. Patents Nos. 7,533,056, 7,587,357, and 7,613,651, and by later amendment to the complaint No. 7,676,411 by the eSpeedometer product. On June 24, 2010, TT filed a Second Amended Complaint to add certain of the Company’s affiliates. On February 4, 2011, the Court ordered that the case be consolidated with nine other cases filed by TT in February 2010 against other defendants, involving some of the same patents. On May 25, 2011, TT filed a Third Amended Complaint substituting certain of the Company’s affiliates for the previously-named defendants. On June 15, 2011, TT filed a Fourth Amended Complaint adding claims of direct and indirect infringement of six additional U.S. Patents Nos. 7,685,055, 7,693,768, 7,725,382, 7,813,996, 7,904,374, and 7,930,240. On October 3, 2011 the Company filed an answer and counterclaims. On February 9, 2012, the Court granted a motion for partial summary judgment, holding that Patent No. 7,676,411 is invalid, and a motion for partial summary judgment that Patent No. 7,533,056 is not invalid for lack of written description. On July 31, 2012, the Court entered a final judgment of invalidity as to Patents Nos. 7,676,411, 7,685,055, 7,693,768, and 7,904,374, and certified that final judgment for immediate interlocutory appeal. TT filed a notice of appeal from that final judgment on July 31, 2012.

On August 24, 2009, Tullett Liberty Securities LLC (“Tullett Liberty”) filed a claim with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) dispute resolution (the “FINRA Arbitration”) in New York, New York against BGC Financial, L.P. (“BGC Financial”), an affiliate of BGC Partners, one of BGC Financial’s officers, and certain persons formerly or currently employed by Tullett Liberty subsidiaries. Tullett Liberty thereafter added Tullett Prebon Americas Corp. (“Tullett Americas,” together with Tullett Liberty, the “Tullett Subsidiaries”) as a claimant, and added 35 individual employees, who were formerly employed by the Tullett Subsidiaries, as respondents. In the FINRA Arbitration, the Tullett Subsidiaries allege that BGC Financial harmed their inter-dealer brokerage business by hiring 79 of their employees, and that BGC Financial aided and abetted various alleged wrongs by the employees, engaged in unfair competition, misappropriated trade secrets and confidential information, tortiously interfered with contract and economic relationships, and violated FINRA Rules of Conduct. The Tullett Subsidiaries also alleged certain breaches of contract and duties of loyalty and fiduciary duties against the employees. BGC Financial has generally agreed to indemnify the employees. In the FINRA Arbitration, the Tullett Subsidiaries claim compensatory damages of not less than $779 million and exemplary damages of not less than $500 million. The Tullett Subsidiaries also seek costs and permanent injunctions against the defendants.

The parties stipulated to consolidate the FINRA Arbitration with five other related arbitrations (FINRA Case Nos. 09-04807, 09-04842, 09-06377, 10-00139 and 10-01265)—two arbitrations previously commenced against Tullett Liberty by certain of its former brokers now employed by BGC Financial, as well as three arbitrations commenced against BGC Financial by brokers who were previously employed by BGC Financial before returning to Tullett Liberty. FINRA consolidated them. BGC Financial and the employees filed their Statement of Answer and BGC’s Statement of Counterclaim. Tullett Liberty responded to BGC’s Counterclaim. Tullett filed an action in the Supreme Court, New York County against three of BGC’s executives involved in the recruitment in the New York metropolitan area. Tullett agreed to discontinue the action in New York state court and add these claims to the FINRA Arbitration. Tullett and the Company have also agreed to join Tullett’s claims against BGC Capital Markets, L.P. to the FINRA Arbitration. The parties and FINRA also agreed to consolidate an eighth arbitration filed against the Tullett Subsidiaries by certain of its former brokers now employed by BGC Financial. The hearings in the FINRA Arbitration and the arbitrations consolidated therewith began in mid-April 2012.

On October 22, 2009, Tullett Prebon plc (“Tullett”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against BGC Partners captioned Tullett Prebon plc vs. BGC Partners, Inc. (the “New Jersey Action”). In the New Jersey Action, Tullett asserted claims relating to decisions made by approximately 81 brokers to terminate their employment with the Tullett Subsidiaries and join BGC Partners’ affiliates. In its complaint, Tullett made a number of allegations against BGC Partners related to raiding, unfair competition, New Jersey RICO, and other claims arising from the brokers’ current or prospective employment by BGC Partners’ affiliates. Tullett claimed compensatory damages against BGC Partners in excess of $1 billion for various alleged injuries as well as exemplary damages. It also sought costs and an injunction against additional hirings.

In response to a BGC motion, Tullett filed its First Amended Complaint (the “Amended New Jersey Complaint”), which largely repeated the allegations of injury and the claims asserted in the initial complaint. The Amended New Jersey Complaint incorporates the damages sought in the FINRA Arbitration, repeats many of the allegations raised in the FINRA Arbitration and also references hiring of employees of Tullett affiliates by BGC Partners or BGC Partners’ affiliates overseas, for which Tullett and/or the Tullett Subsidiaries have filed suit outside of the U.S., including one in the High Court in London and another commenced by a Tullett affiliate against seven brokers at a BGC Partners affiliate in Hong Kong, on which the Company may have certain indemnity obligations. In the London action, the High Court found liability for certain of BGC Partners’ actions, affirmed on appeal, and the case was settled during the damages hearing thereafter. The Hong Kong case has also been settled. BGC Partners moved to dismiss the Amended New Jersey Complaint, or in the alternative, to stay the action pending the resolution of the FINRA Arbitration. In that motion, BGC Partners argued that Tullett lacked standing to pursue its claims, that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that each of the causes of action in the Amended New Jersey Complaint failed to state a legally sufficient claim. On June 18, 2010, the District Court ordered that the First Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Tullett appealed. On May 13, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Judicial Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court dismissing the case with prejudice. Subsequently, Tullett, joined by two subsidiaries, has filed a complaint against BGC Partners in New Jersey state court alleging substantially the same claims. The New Jersey state action also raises claims related to employees who decided to terminate their employment with Tullett and join a BGC Partners affiliate subsequent to the federal complaint. BGC has moved to stay the New Jersey state action and has also moved to dismiss certain of the claims asserted therein. On November 9, 2011, the court granted BGC Partners’ motion to dismiss Tullett’s claim for “raiding,” but otherwise denied the motions to dismiss and for a stay. BGC Partners moved for leave to appeal the denial of its motions. On December 21, 2011, the Superior Court, Appellate Division, denied BGC Partners’ motion for leave to appeal. On December 22, 2011, BGC Partners filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses. This action is proceeding to discovery.

Subsidiaries of Tullett filed additional claims with FINRA on April 4, 2011, seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief against BGC Financial, and nine additional former employees of the Tullett subsidiaries alleging similar claims (similar to those asserted in the previously filed FINRA Arbitration) related to BGC Financial’s hiring of those nine employees in 2011. These claims have not been consolidated with the other FINRA proceedings. BGC Financial and those employees filed their Statement of Answer and the employees’ Statement of Counterclaims, and the Tullett subsidiaries responded to the employees’ counterclaims. The hearings before FINRA in this case began in October 2012.

On August 10, 2012, the Tullett Subsidiaries commenced a FINRA arbitration against BGC Financial, BGC USA, L.P. (“BGC USA”), another affiliate of BGC Partners, and an officer and an employee of BGC Financial who were formerly employed by the Tullett Subsidiaries. The Tullett Subsidiaries allege that BGC Financial and BGC USA aided and abetted various alleged wrongs by the individual respondents, tortiously interfered with these individuals’ employment contracts with Tullett, and violated a FINRA Rule of Conduct. The Tullett Subsidiaries also allege breaches of contract and duties of loyalty and fiduciary duties, as well as the misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information, and the violation of a FINRA Rule of Conduct against their former employees, and seek a declaratory judgment invalidating indemnification agreements entered into between the BGC respondents and the individual respondents. The Tullett Subsidiaries seek compensatory damages of not less than $14 million in salaries, bonuses and other compensation and benefits they paid to the individual respondents, as well as consequential and punitive damages. The Tullett Subsidiaries also seek costs and a permanent injunction, in addition to the aforementioned declaratory judgment, against the respondents. Statements of Answer are due on November 8, 2012.

BGC Partners and its affiliates intend to vigorously defend against and seek appropriate affirmative relief in the FINRA Arbitration and the other actions, and believe that they have substantial defenses to the claims asserted against them in those proceedings, believe that the damages and injunctive relief sought against them in those proceedings are unwarranted and unprecedented, and believe that Tullett Liberty, Tullett and the Tullett Subsidiaries are attempting to use the judicial and industry dispute resolution mechanisms in an effort to shift blame to BGC Partners for their own failures. However, no assurance can be given as to whether Tullett, Tullett Liberty or any of the Tullett Subsidiaries may actually succeed against either BGC Partners or any of its affiliates.

In November 2010, the Company’s affiliates filed three proceedings against Tullett Prebon Information (C.I.) Ltd and certain of its affiliates. In these proceedings, the Company’s affiliates seek to recover significant damages relating to Tullett’s theft of BGCantor Market Data’s proprietary data. BGCantor Market Data (and two predecessors in interest) seek contractual damages and two of the Company’s brokerage affiliates seek disgorgement of profits due to unfair competition. An award has been rendered in the arbitration by BGCantor Market Data (and two predecessors in interest) in favor of the Company in the approximate amount of $0.8 million. The Company has moved to vacate the award because of its failure to award attorneys’ fees and award a greater amount in damages. Tullett has moved to confirm the award.

On March 9, 2012, a purported derivative action was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York captioned International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund, etc. v. Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., CF Group Management, Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., the Company and its directors, Index No. 650736-2012, which suit alleges that the terms of the April 1, 2010 8.75% Convertible Notes issued to Cantor were unfair to the Company, the Company’s Controlled Equity Offerings unfairly benefited Cantor at the Company’s expense and the August 2011 amendment to the change in control agreement of Mr. Lutnick was unfair to the Company. It seeks to recover for the Company unquantified damages, disgorgement of payments received by defendants, a declaration that the 8.75% Convertible Notes are void and attorneys’ fees. On April 2, 2012, a purported derivative action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Samuel Pill v. Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., CF Group Management, Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., the Company and its directors, Civil Action No. 7382-CS, which suit alleged that the terms of the April 1, 2010 8.75% Convertible Notes issued to Cantor were unfair to the Company, the Company’s Controlled Equity Offerings unfairly benefited Cantor at the Company’s expense and the August 2011 amendment to the change in control agreement of Mr. Lutnick was unfair to the Company. It seeks to recover for the Company unquantified damages, disgorgement of payments received by defendants, a declaration that the 8.75% Convertible Notes are void and attorneys’ fees. On April 12, 2012, this Complaint was subsequently amended to delete any claim for relief in connection with the 8.75% Convertible Notes. On June 8, 2012, Defendants filed a motion simultaneously in New York and Delaware requesting that the two actions proceed in one forum. In response to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff Samuel Pill voluntarily dismissed the Delaware action, without prejudice, in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware on June 19, 2012. On the same date, Plaintiff Pill refiled his complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, captioned Samuel Pill v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., CF Group Management, Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., the Company and its directors, Index No. 652126-2012. The two actions filed in New York were consolidated on August 27, 2012. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action on August 10, 2012, and plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss on September 24, 2012. Defendants’ reply to plaintiffs’ opposition was filed on October 18, 2012, pursuant to the briefing schedule set by the court. The Company believes that plaintiffs’ allegations are without merit and intends to continue to defend against them vigorously.

In the ordinary course of business, various legal actions are brought and may be pending against the Company. The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings by governmental and self-regulatory agencies (both formal and informal) regarding the Company’s business. Any such actions may result in judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.

Legal reserves are established in accordance with FASB guidance on Accounting for Contingencies, when a material legal liability is both probable and reasonably estimable. Once established, reserves are adjusted when there is more information available or when an event occurs requiring a change. The outcome of such items cannot be determined with certainty; therefore, the Company cannot predict what the eventual loss related to such matters will be. Management believes that, based on currently available information, the final outcome of these current pending matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Letter of Credit Agreements

The Company has irrevocable uncollateralized letters of credit with various banks, where the beneficiaries are clearing organizations through which it transacted, that are used in lieu of margin and deposits with those clearing organizations. As of September 30, 2012, the Company was contingently liable for $2.0 million under these letters of credit.

Risk and Uncertainties

The Company generates revenues by providing financial intermediary and securities trading and brokerage activities to institutional customers and by executing and, in some cases, clearing transactions for institutional counterparties. Revenues for these services are transaction-based. As a result, revenues could vary based on the transaction volume of global financial markets. Additionally, financing is sensitive to interest rate fluctuations, which could have an impact on its overall profitability.

Guarantees

The Company provides guarantees to securities clearinghouses and exchanges which meet the definition of a guarantee under FASB interpretations. Under these standard securities clearinghouse and exchange membership agreements, members are required to guarantee, collectively, the performance of other members and, accordingly, if another member becomes unable to satisfy its obligations to the clearinghouse or exchange, all other members would be required to meet the shortfall. In the opinion of management, the Company’s liability under these agreements is not quantifiable and could exceed the cash and securities it has posted as collateral. However, the potential of being required to make payments under these arrangements is remote. Accordingly, no contingent liability has been recorded in the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated statements of financial condition for these agreements.