COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES.
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	21. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings As of June 30, 2018, the Company was subject to the various legal proceedings and claims discussed below, as well as certain other legal proceedings and claims that have not been fully resolved and that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. The Company reviews its legal proceedings and claims, regulatory reviews and inspections and other legal proceedings on an ongoing basis and follows appropriate accounting guidance when making accrual and disclosure decisions. The Company establishes accruals for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, and the Company discloses the amount accrued and the amount of a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, if such disclosure is necessary for our financial statements to not be misleading. The Company does not record liabilities when the likelihood that the liability has been incurred is probable, but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated, or when the liability is believed to be only reasonably possible or remote. The Company’s assessment of whether a loss is reasonably possible or probable is based on its assessment of the ultimate outcome of the matter following all appeals. As of June 30, 2018, the Company does not believe that there is a reasonable possibility that any material loss exceeding the amounts already recognized for these reviews, inspections or other legal proceedings, if any, has been incurred. While the consequences of certain unresolved proceedings are not presently determinable, the outcome of any litigation is inherently uncertain and an adverse outcome from certain matters could have a material effect on our earnings in any given reporting period. However, in the opinion of management, the ultimate liability is not expected to have a material effect on our financial position, liquidity or capital resources. Except as set forth herein, there have been no material changes during the period covered by this Form 10‑Q from the legal proceedings disclosures in our Annual Report on Form 10‑K for the year ended December 31, 2017. City of Providence On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Bats and Direct Edge Holdings LLC, as well as 14 other securities exchanges. The action purports to be brought on behalf of all public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the United States since April 18, 2009 on a registered public stock exchange (“Exchange Defendants”) or a U.S.-based alternate trading venue and were injured as a result of the alleged misconduct detailed in the complaint, which includes allegations that the Exchange Defendants committed fraud through a variety of business practices associated with, among other things, what is commonly referred to as high frequency trading. On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants which were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence, Rhode Island securities class action lawsuit. On June 18, 2015, the Southern District of New York (the “Lower Court”) held oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and thereafter, on August 26, 2015, the Lower Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Exchange Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the complaint in full. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on September 24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016. Respondent's brief was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral argument was held on August 24, 2016. Following oral argument, the Court of Appeals issued an order requesting that the SEC submit an amicus brief on whether the Lower Court had jurisdiction and whether the Exchange Defendants have immunity in the claims alleged. The SEC filed its amicus brief with the Court of Appeals on November 28, 2016 and Plaintiff and the Exchange Defendants filed their respective supplemental response briefs on December 12, 2016. On December 19, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the Lower Court’s dismissal and remanded the case back to the Lower Court. On March 13, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied the Exchange Defendants’ motion for re-hearing. The Exchange Defendants filed their opening brief for their motion to dismiss May 18, 2018, Plaintiffs’ response was filed June 15, 2018 and the Exchange Defendants’ reply was filed June 29, 2018. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, the Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously. VIX Litigation On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02025 was filed in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the Company intentionally designed its products, operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value designed by the Company and calculated on the settlement date of VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that could be collusively manipulated by a group of entities named as John Doe defendants. A number of similar putative class actions, some of which do not name the Company as a party, have been filed in federal court in Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in certain volatility-related products. On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the putative class actions in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. The cases assert causes of action for, among others, alleged violations of the Sherman Act, the Commodity Exchange Act and/or the Securities Exchange Act. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, and relief including treble damages, punitive damages and/or restitution, injunctive and equitable relief, pre and post judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and expenses and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the Company is still evaluating the facts underlying the complaints, however, the Company currently believes that the claims are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. Contractual Obligations The Company currently leases office space, data centers and remote network operations centers, with lease terms remaining ranging from three months to one hundred months as of June 30, 2018. Total rent expense related to these lease obligations, reflected in technology support services and facilities costs line items on the condensed consolidated statements of income, for the three months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017 were $2.9 million and $2.7 million, respectively, and $4.4 million and $4.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017.

21. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

As of June 30, 2018, the Company was subject to the various legal proceedings and claims discussed below, as well as certain other legal proceedings and claims that have not been fully resolved and that have arisen in the ordinary course of business.

The Company reviews its legal proceedings and claims, regulatory reviews and inspections and other legal proceedings on an ongoing basis and follows appropriate accounting guidance when making accrual and disclosure decisions. The Company establishes accruals for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, and the Company discloses the amount accrued and the amount of a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, if such disclosure is necessary for our financial statements to not be misleading. The Company does not record liabilities when the likelihood that the liability has been incurred is probable, but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated, or when the liability is believed to be only reasonably possible or remote. The Company’s assessment of whether a loss is reasonably possible or probable is based on its assessment of the ultimate outcome of the matter following all appeals.

As of June 30, 2018, the Company does not believe that there is a reasonable possibility that any material loss exceeding the amounts already recognized for these reviews, inspections or other legal proceedings, if any, has been incurred. While the consequences of certain unresolved proceedings are not presently determinable, the outcome of any litigation is inherently uncertain and an adverse outcome from certain matters could have a material effect on our earnings in any given reporting period. However, in the opinion of management, the ultimate liability is not expected to have a material effect on our financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

Except as set forth herein, there have been no material changes during the period covered by this Form 10‑Q from the legal proceedings disclosures in our Annual Report on Form 10‑K for the year ended December 31, 2017.

City of Providence

On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Bats and Direct Edge Holdings LLC, as well as 14 other securities exchanges. The action purports to be brought on behalf of all public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the United States since April 18, 2009 on a registered public stock exchange (“Exchange Defendants”) or a U.S.-based alternate trading venue and were injured as a result of the alleged misconduct detailed in the complaint, which includes allegations that the Exchange Defendants committed fraud through a variety of business practices associated with, among other things, what is commonly referred to as high frequency trading. On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants which were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence, Rhode Island securities class action lawsuit. On June 18, 2015, the Southern District of New York (the “Lower Court”) held oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and thereafter, on August 26, 2015, the Lower Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Exchange Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the complaint in full. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on September 24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016. Respondent's brief was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral argument was held on August 24, 2016. Following oral argument, the Court of Appeals issued an order requesting that the SEC submit an amicus brief on whether the Lower Court had jurisdiction and whether the Exchange Defendants have immunity in the claims alleged. The SEC filed its amicus brief with the Court of Appeals on November 28, 2016 and Plaintiff and the Exchange Defendants filed their respective supplemental response briefs on December 12, 2016. On December 19, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the Lower Court’s dismissal and remanded the case back to the Lower Court. On March 13, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied the Exchange Defendants’ motion for re-hearing. The Exchange Defendants filed their opening brief for their motion to dismiss May 18, 2018, Plaintiffs’ response was filed June 15, 2018 and the Exchange Defendants’ reply was filed June 29, 2018. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, the Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously.

VIX Litigation

On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02025 was filed in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the Company intentionally designed its products, operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value designed by the Company and calculated on the settlement date of VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that could be collusively manipulated by a group of entities named as John Doe defendants. A number of similar putative class actions, some of which do not name the Company as a party, have been filed in federal court in Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in certain volatility-related products. On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the putative class actions in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. The cases assert causes of action for, among others, alleged violations of the Sherman Act, the Commodity Exchange Act and/or the Securities Exchange Act. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, and relief including treble damages, punitive damages and/or restitution, injunctive and equitable relief, pre and post judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and expenses and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the Company is still evaluating the facts underlying the complaints, however, the Company currently believes that the claims are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation.

Contractual Obligations

The Company currently leases office space, data centers and remote network operations centers, with lease terms remaining ranging from three months to one hundred months as of June 30, 2018. Total rent expense related to these lease obligations, reflected in technology support services and facilities costs line items on the condensed consolidated statements of income, for the three months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017 were $2.9 million and $2.7 million, respectively, and $4.4 million and $4.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017.