Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

We have lease agreements for office space, equipment facilities and certain computer equipment for varying periods that expire at various dates through 2028. Our leases contain terms which may include renewal options, rent escalations, rent holidays and leasehold improvement incentives. All of our leases are classified as operating leases. Rental expense under these leases, included in rent and occupancy and technology and communication expenses, totaled $59 million, $58 million and $58 million in 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively. As of December 31, 2018, future minimum lease payments under non-cancellable operating lease agreements are as follows (in millions):



2019	$	64
2020	61
2021	60
2022	58
2023	41
Thereafter	133
Total	$	417

Legal Proceedings

We are subject to legal proceedings, claims and investigations that arise in the ordinary course of our business. We establish accruals for those matters in circumstances when a loss contingency is considered probable and the related amount is reasonably estimable. Any such accruals may be adjusted as circumstances change. Assessments of losses are inherently subjective and involve unpredictable factors. We do not believe that the resolution of these legal matters, including the matters described below, will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. It is possible, however, that future results of operations for any particular quarterly or annual period could be materially and adversely affected by any developments relating to the legal proceedings, claims and investigations. A range of possible losses related to the cases below cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, except as otherwise disclosed below.

City of Providence Litigation

In 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., two of our subsidiaries, were among more than 40 financial institutions and exchanges named as defendants in four purported class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Southern District, by the City of Providence, Rhode Island, and other plaintiffs. In subsequent consolidated amended complaints, the plaintiffs asserted claims against the exchange defendants and Barclays PLC which operates an ATS known as Barclays LX, on behalf of a class of “all public investors” who bought or sold stock from April 18, 2009 to the present on the U.S.-based equity exchanges operated by the exchange defendants or on Barclays LX.

In 2015, the district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice. The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently state a claim against the defendants under Sections 10(b) and 6(b) of the Exchange Act, and additionally that some of the claims against the exchanges were barred by the doctrine of self-regulatory organization immunity. In 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the dismissal of the lawsuit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, or the Second Circuit.

On December 19, 2017, the Second Circuit issued a decision vacating the dismissal and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings. The Second Circuit held that the claims against the exchanges were not barred by the doctrine of self-regulatory organization immunity because (according to the Second Circuit) the exchanges were not carrying out regulatory functions while operating their markets and engaging in the challenged conduct at issue, and that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded claims against the defendants under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The Second Circuit directed that, on remand, the district court should address and rule upon various other defenses raised by the exchanges in their motion to dismiss (which the district court did not address in its prior opinion and order). The parties are awaiting a decision on a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant exchanges in the district court seeking dismissal on grounds other than those considered by the Second Circuit in its December 2017 decision.

LIBOR Litigation

On January 15, 2019 and January 31, 2019, two virtually identical purported class action complaints were filed, respectively, by Putnam Bank, a savings bank based in Putnam, Connecticut, and two municipal pension funds affiliated with the City of Livonia, Michigan, in the Southern District against ICE and several of its subsidiaries, including ICE Benchmark Administration Limited (“IBA”) (the “ICE Defendants”), as well as 18 multinational banks and various of their respective subsidiaries and affiliates (the “Panel Bank Defendants”). IBA is the administrator for various regulated benchmarks, including the ICE LIBOR benchmark that is calculated daily based upon the submissions from a reference panel (which includes the Panel Bank Defendants).

The plaintiffs seek to litigate on behalf of a purported class of all U.S.-based persons or entities who transacted with a Panel Bank Defendant by receiving a payment on an interest rate indexed to a LIBOR-benchmarked rate during the period February 1, 2014 to the present. The plaintiffs allege that the ICE Defendants and Panel Bank Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to set the LIBOR benchmark at artificially low levels, with an alleged purpose and effect of depressing payments by the Panel Bank Defendants to members of the purported class.

The complaints assert claims for violations of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts and for unjust enrichment under common law, and seek unspecified treble damages and other relief. ICE intends to vigorously defend these matters.

SEC Investigation of 2015 NYSE Outage

In December 2015, our subsidiaries New York Stock Exchange, LLC and NYSE American received an inquiry from the Enforcement staff of the New York regional office, or the Staff, of the SEC regarding a July 8, 2015 outage on the NYSE markets, during which trading was suspended for approximately 3.5 hours in all symbols. The Staff’s investigation proceeded throughout 2016, and NYSE received a Wells Notice stating that the Staff had made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action in connection with NYSE's response to the circumstances leading into the suspension of trading that day. NYSE disputed the appropriateness of the proposed charges and made a written submission to the Staff in response to the Wells Notice. On March 6, 2018, NYSE and affiliated exchanges reached a settlement with the SEC on this matter and various matters under investigation and agreed to pay a $14 million civil monetary penalty, together with certain non-monetary relief. For further details about the settlement and underlying matters that were under investigation, please refer to Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 19(h)(1) and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-18388 (In the Matter of New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc.) entered into on March 6, 2018. For this matter and other SEC investigative matters, during 2017, we recorded an aggregate of $14 million in expense accruals.

Tax Audits

We are engaged in ongoing discussions and audits with taxing authorities on various tax matters, the resolutions of which are uncertain. Currently, there are matters that may lead to assessments involving us or one of our subsidiaries, some of which may not be resolved for several years. Based on currently available information, we believe we have adequately provided for any assessments that could result from those proceedings where it is more likely than not that we will be assessed. We continuously review our positions as these matters progress.