Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, the nature of the Company’s business subjects it to claims, lawsuits, regulatory examinations and other proceedings. The Company is subject to several of these matters at the present time. Given the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of the litigation and regulatory matters, particularly in cases or proceedings in which substantial or indeterminate damages or fines are sought, or where cases or proceedings are in the early stages, the Company cannot estimate losses or ranges of losses for cases or proceedings where there is only a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred. There can be no assurance that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations in any future period and a material judgment could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations. However, it is the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel that, based on information currently available, the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse impact on the business, financial condition or operating results of the Company although they might be material to the operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon operating results for that period. In the second quarter of 2013, the Company recorded a $10.0 million reserve for legal proceedings, which is included in Other expenses on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

As previously disclosed in the Company's public filings, the Company experienced a technology issue at the open of trading at the NYSE on August 1, 2012. This issue was related to the installation of trading software and resulted in the Company's broker-dealer subsidiary, KCA, sending numerous erroneous orders in NYSE-listed and NYSE Arca securities into the market. As noted in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company has since been named in two putative class actions and one derivative lawsuit relating to the technology issue and have received several derivative demand letters and/or requests for the inspection or production of certain books and records pursuant to Delaware law related to the technology issue and the August 6, 2012 recapitalization. In addition, the Company and KCA are the subject of a regulatory investigation.

Since the announcement on December 19, 2012 of the signing of the Merger Agreement between the Company and GETCO, the Company, GETCO, GA-GTCO, as well as the individual members of the Company's Board of Directors prior to the Mergers (the “Individual Defendants”), were named as defendants in several lawsuits brought by certain purported Knight stockholders challenging the proposed Mergers. The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the Mergers fail to properly value Knight, that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement and that those breaches were aided and abetted by GETCO and GA-GTCO. The lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from completing the Mergers on the agreed-upon terms, rescission of the Mergers (to the extent the Mergers have already been consummated), monetary relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

While the Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of any possible litigation related to the technology issue, the August 6, 2012 recapitalization, or the Mergers, an unfavorable outcome in one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or ongoing results of operations. In addition, the Company expects to incur additional expenses in defending against litigation and in connection with the investigation.

Legal

On October 26, 2012, Knight, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Thomas M. Joyce, and its Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Steven Bisgay, were named as defendants in an action entitled Fernandez v. Knight Capital Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Generally, this putative class action complaint alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and/or failed to disclose matters related to the events of August 1. The plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 and Rule 10b-5 of the federal securities laws, claiming that he and a class of the Company's shareholders who purchased the Company's Class A common stock between January 19, 2012 and August 1, 2012 paid an inflated price. Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and counsel, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 14, 2013, alleging generally that the defendants made material misstatements and/or failed to disclose matters related to the events of August 1. More specifically, the plaintiff alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the Company's risk management procedures and protocols, available cash and liquidity, Value at Risk and internal controls over financial reporting. The plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 and Rule 10b-5 of the federal securities laws, claiming that it and a class of the Company's shareholders who purchased the Company's securities between November 30, 2011 and August 1, 2012 paid an inflated price. On May 13, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Pursuant to the parties' scheduling order, briefing on the motion to dismiss will be complete in August 2013.

As noted above, the Company has received several demand letters requesting that it commence a lawsuit against certain directors and officers for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, waste, wrongdoing, mismanagement and/or demanding that it produce certain books and records pursuant to Delaware law concerning the technology issue and the August 6 recapitalization.

Mergers Litigation

Delaware Litigation. On December 28, 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Ann Jimenez McMillan v. Thomas M. Joyce, et al., Case No. 8163-VCP. The complaint names as defendants the Company, each member of the Company's Board of Directors (the “Individual Defendants”), GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the Individual Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by accepting an inadequate merger price, approving the transaction despite material conflicts of interest, and agreeing to a number of improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make successful competing offers for Knight. The complaint also alleges that the Company, GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting consummation of the Mergers, rescission of the Mergers (to the extent the Mergers have already been consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs. On December 28, 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Chrislaine Dominique v. Thomas M. Joyce, et al., Case No. 8159-VCP. The complaint names as defendants the Company, the Individual Defendants, GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the Individual Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by accepting an inadequate merger price, approving the transaction despite material conflicts of interest, including that they were appointed by an investor group that included GETCO, and agreeing to a number of improper deal protection devices, which allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make successful competing offers for Knight. The complaint also alleges that the Company and GETCO aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting consummation of the Mergers, rescission of the Mergers (to the extent the Mergers have already been consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 31, 2013, the Court of Chancery consolidated for all purposes the McMillan and Dominique actions into a single action captioned In re Knight Capital Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8159-VCP. On March 5, 2013, the co-lead plaintiffs in the Delaware Consolidated Action filed an amended complaint and motions for expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction. In addition to the allegations in the initial complaints, the Delaware amended complaint contains allegations that the Knight board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by providing stockholders with allegedly deficient disclosures about the proposed transaction in the Company's Preliminary Form S-4, filed with the SEC on February 13, 2013 (the “Preliminary Proxy”).

New Jersey Litigation. On December 31, 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division of Hudson County, NJ, captioned Charles Bryan v. Knight Capital, et al., Case No. HUD-C-001-13. The complaint names as defendants the Company, the Individual Defendants, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Jefferies High Yield Trading, LLC, TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., Blackstone Capital Partners VI L.P., Blackstone Family Investment Partnership VI-ESC L.P., Blackstone Family Investment Partnership VI L.P., Stephens Investments Holdings LLC, Stifel Financial Corp., GETCO Strategic Investments, LLC, GETCO Holding Company LLC, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by accepting an inadequate merger price, agreeing to a number of improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make successful competing offers for Knight and approving the transaction despite material conflicts of interest, including that they were appointed by an investor group that included GETCO. The complaint further alleges that the entity defendants (except for Knight and GA-GTCO, LLC) breached alleged fiduciary duties in connection with the Individual Defendants' approval of the Mergers. The complaint also alleges that GETCO and GA-GTCO, LLC aided and abetted the Individual Defendants' purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Mergers, rescission of the Mergers (to the extent the Mergers have already been consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 31, 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division of Hudson County, NJ, captioned James Ward v. Knight Capital, et al., Case No. HUD-C-0003-13. The complaint names as defendants the Company, the Individual Defendants, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Jefferies High Yield Trading, LLC, TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., Blackstone Capital Partners VI L.P., Blackstone Family Investment Partnership VI-ESC L.P., Blackstone Family Investment Partnership VI L.P., Stephens Investments Holdings LLC, Stifel Financial Corp., GETCO Strategic Investments, LLC, GETCO Holding Company LLC, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by accepting an inadequate merger price, agreeing to a number of improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make successful competing offers for Knight and approving the transaction despite material conflicts of interest, including that they were appointed by an investor group that included GETCO. The complaint further alleges that the entity defendants (except for Knight and GA-GTCO, LLC) breached alleged fiduciary duties in connection with the Individual Defendants' approval of the Mergers. The complaint also alleges that GETCO and GA-GTCO, LLC aided and abetted the Individual Defendants' purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Mergers, rescission of the Mergers (to the extent the Mergers have already been consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs. On February 20, 2013, Knight moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay the New Jersey actions in deference to the first-filed Delaware actions. The New Jersey court granted the motion on March 28, 2013, and ordered that the New Jersey actions be stayed for all purposes in deference to the first-filed Delaware actions.

New York Litigation. On January 15, 2013, the Company, the Individual Defendants, GETCO Holding Company LLC, GA-GTCO, LLC and General Atlantic were named as defendants in an action entitled Joel Rosenfeld v. Thomas M. Joyce, et al., Case No. 6540147/2013, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (New York County). The plaintiff, Joel Rosenfeld, is one of the shareholders mentioned above who previously sent the Company a derivative demand letter. Generally, this complaint asserts both derivative and class action claims. First, it purports to assert derivative claims, which allege, among other things, that the seven Knight directors who were serving as of August 1, 2012 breached their fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets by failing to erect and oversee effective safeguards to prevent against technology issues, such as the one that occurred on August 1, 2012, for which Knight incurred a realized pre-tax loss of approximately $457.6 million. Second, it asserts putative class action claims resulting from the proposed Mergers for (1) breach of fiduciary duty against the Individual Defendants; and (2) aiding and abetting the purported breach of fiduciary duty against GETCO, GA-GTCO, LLC, and General Atlantic. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Mergers at an inadequate price, agreeing to a number of improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make successful competing offers for Knight, and that certain of Knight's directors have conflicts of interest in connection with the transaction, including that certain directors sought to enter into the transaction to avoid potential liability relating to the derivative claims asserted in the complaint. With respect to the merger claims, the plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin the proposed Mergers, rescission of the proposed Mergers (to the extent they have already been consummated) and attorneys' fees. With respect to the derivative claims, the plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order requiring the Knight directors who were serving as of August 1, 2012 to pay restitution and/or compensatory damages in favor of Knight and/or the proposed class of Knight shareholders. On March 14, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which, in addition to the allegations in the initial complaint, contains allegations that the Knight board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by providing stockholders with allegedly deficient disclosures about the proposed transaction in the Preliminary Proxy. On March 21, 2013, the plaintiff moved by order to show cause for expedited discovery in support of his claims. The New York court issued an order on March 25, 2013, setting a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for April 4, 2013. On March 28, 2013, the parties in the New York action reached an agreement with respect to the matters raised in the plaintiff's motion and other aspects of the action, and as a result, on March 29, 2013, the plaintiff withdrew his motion for expedited discovery. On April 9, 2013, the New York court granted permission for the plaintiff to withdraw his motion.

* * *

As previously disclosed in the Company's June 14, 2013 Form 8-K filing, on June 10, 2013, the defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware shareholder actions and New York shareholder action regarding the settlement of those actions. In connection with the settlement, Knight and GETCO agreed to make supplemental disclosures to the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on May 28, 2013 (the “Proxy Statement”). In addition, Knight and GETCO agreed to make certain revisions to Knight's risk committee charter, as well as to KCG Holdings, Inc.'s risk committee charter.

The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Knight's former stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Delaware Court of Chancery will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims that were brought or could have been brought in the Delaware, New York, and New Jersey shareholder actions, including claims challenging any aspect of the Mergers, the Merger Agreement, or any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to Knight's former stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the Delaware Court of Chancery for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by KCG Holdings, Inc. There can be no assurance that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, or that the court will approve any proposed settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.

The settlement is not, and should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any of the defendants. The defendants continue to believe that the shareholder actions challenging the Mergers are without merit and vigorously deny the allegations that Knight's directors breached their fiduciary duties. Likewise, defendants do not believe that any disclosures regarding the Mergers are required under applicable laws other than that which have already been provided in the Proxy Statement. Nonetheless, the defendants entered into the memorandum of understanding to avoid the risk of the putative stockholder class action delaying or adversely affecting the Mergers, to minimize the substantial expense, burden, distraction and inconvenience of continued litigation and to fully and finally resolve the claims in the shareholder actions.

Regulatory

As previously discussed in the Company's public filings, on August 9, 2012, the SEC began an examination of KCA's compliance with SEC Rule 15c3-5 (the “Market Access Rule”) and other rules and regulations as they relate to the August 1, 2012 technology issue. The SEC issued a formal order of investigation concerning the Company and KCA on August 29, 2012. The investigation is ongoing and the Company is continuing to cooperate with the regulators. The Company has had discussions with the SEC staff concerning a possible resolution of the investigation. The Company currently believes that any financial penalty in connection with a possible resolution of the SEC investigation would not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated long-term financial condition of the Company, although any financial penalty could be material to operating results for a particular period, depending, in part, upon operating results for that period.

Other Legal and Regulatory Matters

The Company owns subsidiaries including regulated entities that are subject to extensive oversight under federal, state and applicable international laws as well as SRO rules. Changes in market structure and the need to remain competitive require constant changes to the Company's systems and order handling procedures. The Company makes these changes while continuously endeavoring to comply with many complex laws and rules. Compliance, surveillance and trading issues common in the securities industry are monitored by, reported to, and/or reviewed in the ordinary course of business by the Company's regulators in the U.S. and abroad. As a major order flow execution destination and reverse mortgage originator, the Company is named from time to time in, or is asked to respond to a number of regulatory matters brought by U.S. regulators, foreign regulators and SROs that arise from its business activities. The Company is currently the subject of various regulatory reviews and investigations. In some instances, these matters may rise to a disciplinary action and/or civil or administrative action.

In the second quarter of 2012, the Company recorded pre-tax trading losses of $35.4 million related to the Facebook IPO. On August 1, 2012 Nasdaq’s proposed voluntary accommodation program (the “Accommodation Program”) was published in the Federal Register by the SEC. The Accommodation Program creates a fund for voluntary accommodations for qualifying Nasdaq members disadvantaged by problems that arose during the Facebook IPO. Under the Accommodation Program as proposed by Nasdaq, the Company would recover a portion of its pre-tax trading losses. The Accommodation Program was approved by the SEC on March 22, 2013 which would allow Nasdaq to compensate market participants for certain claims related to system difficulties in connection with the Facebook IPO in an amount not to exceed $62.0 million. On April 2, 2013, the Company submitted an accommodation claim to Nasdaq totaling approximately $13.0 million comprising approximately $2.6 million which would be reimbursed to customers and approximately $10.4 million to be retained by the Company (related to customer trades which had previously been reimbursed to customers by the Company). Nasdaq acknowledged receipt of the April 2, 2013 claim but the Company has not received any indication from Nasdaq as to whether the Company will receive the full amount of the claim. As of June 30, 2013, the Company has not recorded a contingent gain.

Lease & Contract Obligations

The Company leases office space under noncancelable operating leases. Certain office leases contain fixed dollar-based escalation clauses. Rental expense from continuing operations under the office leases was $3.6 million and $3.4 million for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and is included in Occupancy and equipment rentals on the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Rental expense from continuing operations under the office leases was $7.3 million, and $6.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and is included in Occupancy and equipment rentals on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

The Company leases certain computer and other equipment under noncancelable operating leases. As of June 30, 2013, future minimum rental commitments under all noncancelable office, computer and equipment leases (“Gross Lease Obligations”), and Sublease Income were as follows (in thousands):



	Gross Lease Obligations		Sublease Income		Net Lease Obligations
Six months ending December 31, 2013	$	11,349	$	1,179	$	10,170
Year ending December 31, 2014	21,721		1,771		19,950
Year ending December 31, 2015	20,722		1,376		19,346
Year ending December 31, 2016	20,196		1,333		18,863
Year ending December 31, 2017	20,022		1,412		18,610
Thereafter through August 31, 2023	78,825		192		78,633
Total	$	172,835	$	7,263	$	165,572

During the normal course of business, the Company collateralizes certain leases or other contractual obligations through letters of credit or segregated funds held in escrow accounts. At June 30, 2013, the Company had provided a letter of credit for $1.0 million, collateralized by U.S. Treasury Bills, as a guarantee for one of the Company’s lease obligations. In the ordinary course of business, Knight Capital Group, Inc. also has provided, and may provide in the future, unsecured guarantees with respect to the payment obligations of certain of its subsidiaries under trading, repurchase, financing and stock loan arrangements, as well as under certain leases.

The Company has floating rate HECMs which the borrowers have additional borrowing capacity of approximately $645.3 million and $478.1 million as of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. This additional borrowing capacity is primarily in the form of undrawn lines of credit, with the balance generally available on a scheduled payments basis.

During the normal course of business, the Company may enter into futures contracts. These financial instruments are subject to varying degrees of risks whereby the fair value of the securities underlying the financial instruments, may be in excess of, or less than, the contract amount. The Company is obligated to post collateral against certain futures contracts.

The following tables summarize the Company’s futures contract activity (in thousands):



Futures Contracts	Statements of Financial Condition Location	Fair Value of (liability)
		June 30, 2013			December 31, 2012
Notional Value	Not Applicable	$	(205,761	)	$	(180,512	)
Fair Value	Payable to brokers, dealers and clearing organizations	$	(836	)	$	(1,923	)



		Gain Recognized
		For the three months ended June 30,
Futures Contracts	Statements of Operations Location	2013		2012
Unrealized gain	Net trading revenue	$	4,181	$	16,266



		Gain Recognized
		For the six months ended June 30,
Futures Contracts	Statements of Operations Location	2013		2012
Unrealized gain	Net trading revenue	$	6,449	$	11,426