COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments In connection with the purchase of Paragon in August 2012, and in addition to the $12.0 million paid at the closing, there is an additional payment due in the fourth quarter of 2012 based on a contractual working capital adjustment. The preliminary working capital adjustment is expected to be $2.6 million. In connection with the acquisition of the customer assets of dbFX, the Company was required to make certain future minimum payments as well as potential contingent payments, based upon the trading volume generated from those customers acquired by the Company, for a two year period following their acquisition in April 2011. The aggregate payments were previously included in the Fair Value Measurements on a Recurring Basis table as of December 31, 2011, however, as discussed in Note 3 hereof, this arrangement is accounted for as a note payable and is not subject to fair value measurements. Therefore, the amounts have been excluded from the Fair Value Measurements on a Recurring Basis table as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011. The associated liabilities are recorded in Accrued expenses and other liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. As of September 30, 2012, the minimum required remaining payment under this agreement was approximately $2.7 million and the Company estimates that no additional contingent payments will need to be made based upon projected trading volumes. Litigation From time to time the Company becomes involved in legal proceedings and in each case the Company assesses the likely liability and/or the amount of damages, as appropriate. 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. In addition, even where loss is possible or an exposure to loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued with respect to a previously recognized loss contingency, it is often not possible to reasonably estimate the size of the possible loss or range of loss. For certain legal proceedings, the Company can estimate possible losses, additional losses, ranges of loss or ranges of additional loss in excess of amounts accrued. As noted above, for certain other legal proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably estimate such losses, if any, since the Company cannot predict 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 must be developed, including the need to discover and determine important factual matters and the need to address 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. On February 16, 2012, the Company received a Letter of Claim on behalf of certain individuals who had lost money in an investment scheme operated by a third-party money management firm, incorporated in the United Kingdom, that has since been closed down by the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority. The investment firm, Cameron Farley Ltd, had opened a corporate account with the Company and invested the individuals’ money, representing such funds as its own, while operating a fraudulent scheme. Though a complaint has been filed and served on the Company, the claimants requested, and the Company agreed, to follow the United Kingdom’s Pre-Action Protocol, a pre-litigation process intended to resolve matters without the need to engage in formal litigation. The Company submitted a Response to the Letter Before Claim on July 4, 2012. On July 5, 2012 the Company received a substantially similar Letter of Claim on behalf of further individuals. Subsequently, the parties agreed to consolidate claims by those other similarly situated individuals with the pending Pre-Action Protocol process. The Company can provide no assurances that this matter will be successfully resolved through the Pre-Action Protocol and will not result in formal litigation, and no assurances can be provided regarding the outcome of any such potential litigation. This matter is currently pending. At this time, a potential loss or a potential range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated. Through its acquisition of OEC, the Company became the subject of a patent infringement lawsuit originally filed against OEC on February 9, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Trading Technologies International, Inc. seeking injunctive relief and unspecified damages. As reflected in a Second Amended Complaint filed on June 15, 2011, plaintiff alleges infringement of 12 patents relating to real-time display of price quotes and market depth on the OEC’s electronic trading interfaces. The case was consolidated with 11 related cases in February 2011, and the parties have exchanged infringement, non-infringement and invalidity contentions for several of the disputed patents. In June 2011 the court stayed discovery to allow summary judgment briefing on the ramifications of a recent Federal Circuit decision. On February 9, 2012, the court issued an order, which granted OEC’s motions for summary judgment, resulting in a substantial narrowing of the scope of plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of that ruling on March 8, 2012. Plaintiff also filed a motion for certification of judgment for interlocutory appeal. The court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration but granted plaintiff’s motion for certification of judgments of patent invalidity with respect to four of the asserted patents. Since that ruling, the court has continued its stay of discovery. On October 7, 2012, plaintiff filed its opening appeal brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Oral argument on plaintiffs’ appeal is expected to occur in mid to late 2013. Plaintiff’s complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought. At this time, a potential loss or a potential range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

In connection with the purchase of Paragon in August 2012, and in addition to the $12.0 million paid at the closing, there is an additional payment due in the fourth quarter of 2012 based on a contractual working capital adjustment. The preliminary working capital adjustment is expected to be $2.6 million.

In connection with the acquisition of the customer assets of dbFX, the Company was required to make certain future minimum payments as well as potential contingent payments, based upon the trading volume generated from those customers acquired by the Company, for a two year period following their acquisition in April 2011. The aggregate payments were previously included in the Fair Value Measurements on a Recurring Basis table as of December 31, 2011, however, as discussed in Note 3 hereof, this arrangement is accounted for as a note payable and is not subject to fair value measurements. Therefore, the amounts have been excluded from the Fair Value Measurements on a Recurring Basis table as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011. The associated liabilities are recorded in Accrued expenses and other liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. As of September 30, 2012, the minimum required remaining payment under this agreement was approximately $2.7 million and the Company estimates that no additional contingent payments will need to be made based upon projected trading volumes.

Litigation

From time to time the Company becomes involved in legal proceedings and in each case the Company assesses the likely liability and/or the amount of damages, as appropriate. 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. In addition, even where loss is possible or an exposure to loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued with respect to a previously recognized loss contingency, it is often not possible to reasonably estimate the size of the possible loss or range of loss.

For certain legal proceedings, the Company can estimate possible losses, additional losses, ranges of loss or ranges of additional loss in excess of amounts accrued. As noted above, for certain other legal proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably estimate such losses, if any, since the Company cannot predict 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 must be developed, including the need to discover and determine important factual matters and the need to address 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.

On February 16, 2012, the Company received a Letter of Claim on behalf of certain individuals who had lost money in an investment scheme operated by a third-party money management firm, incorporated in the United Kingdom, that has since been closed down by the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority. The investment firm, Cameron Farley Ltd, had opened a corporate account with the Company and invested the individuals’ money, representing such funds as its own, while operating a fraudulent scheme. Though a complaint has been filed and served on the Company, the claimants requested, and the Company agreed, to follow the United Kingdom’s Pre-Action Protocol, a pre-litigation process intended to resolve matters without the need to engage in formal litigation. The Company submitted a Response to the Letter Before Claim on July 4, 2012. On July 5, 2012 the Company received a substantially similar Letter of Claim on behalf of further individuals. Subsequently, the parties agreed to consolidate claims by those other similarly situated individuals with the pending Pre-Action Protocol process. The Company can provide no assurances that this matter will be successfully resolved through the Pre-Action Protocol and will not result in formal litigation, and no assurances can be provided regarding the outcome of any such potential litigation. This matter is currently pending. At this time, a potential loss or a potential range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

Through its acquisition of OEC, the Company became the subject of a patent infringement lawsuit originally filed against OEC on February 9, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Trading Technologies International, Inc. seeking injunctive relief and unspecified damages. As reflected in a Second Amended Complaint filed on June 15, 2011, plaintiff alleges infringement of 12 patents relating to real-time display of price quotes and market depth on the OEC’s electronic trading interfaces. The case was consolidated with 11 related cases in February 2011, and the parties have exchanged infringement, non-infringement and invalidity contentions for several of the disputed patents. In June 2011 the court stayed discovery to allow summary judgment briefing on the ramifications of a recent Federal Circuit decision. On February 9, 2012, the court issued an order, which granted OEC’s motions for summary judgment, resulting in a substantial narrowing of the scope of plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of that ruling on March 8, 2012. Plaintiff also filed a motion for certification of judgment for interlocutory appeal. The court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration but granted plaintiff’s motion for certification of judgments of patent invalidity with respect to four of the asserted patents. Since that ruling, the court has continued its stay of discovery. On October 7, 2012, plaintiff filed its opening appeal brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Oral argument on plaintiffs’ appeal is expected to occur in mid to late 2013. Plaintiff’s complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought. At this time, a potential loss or a potential range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated.