Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

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 2029. All of our leases are classified as operating leases. For details of our lease assets, lease liabilities and rent expense see Note 2.

Legal Proceedings

We are subject to legal proceedings, claims and investigations that arise in the ordinary course of our business. We record estimated expenses and reserves 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.

In 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 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).

In 2018, the defendant exchanges then filed a new motion to dismiss seeking dismissal on grounds other than those considered by the Second Circuit in its remand decision. On May 28, 2019, the district court denied the motion. The exchanges filed a motion in the district court on June 17, 2019 asking the court to certify the matter for an immediate appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and on July 16, 2019, the court denied the exchanges' motion. On July 25, 2019, the exchanges filed answers to the second amended complaint, denying the principal allegations of the plaintiffs, denying liability in the matter, and asserting various affirmative defenses. The discovery period in the matter commenced and is scheduled to continue through 2020.

LIBOR Litigation

On January 15, 2019 and January 31, 2019, two virtually identical purported class action complaints were filed by, respectively, Putnam Bank, a savings bank based in Putnam, Connecticut, and two municipal pension funds affiliated with the City of Livonia, Michigan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 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”). On March 4, 2019, a virtually identical complaint was filed on behalf of four retirement and benefit funds affiliated with the Hawaii Sheet Metal Workers Union. 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). On July 1, 2019, the various plaintiffs referenced above filed a consolidated amended complaint against the ICE and 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 one-month or three-month USD LIBOR-benchmarked rate during the period from February 1, 2014 to the present. The plaintiffs allege that the ICE 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. 

As with the individual complaints, the consolidated amended complaint asserts a claim for violations of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts and seeks unspecified treble damages and other relief. The ICE and Panel Bank Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on August 30, 2019. The district court heard oral arguments on the motions on January 30, 2020, and the parties are awaiting the court's decision. ICE intends to vigorously defend the matter.

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.