13. Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

Claims against Customers

On January 15, 2015, due to the sudden move in the value of the Swiss franc that followed an unprecedented action by the Swiss National Bank, which removed a previously instituted and repeatedly reconfirmed cap of the currency relative to the Euro, several of the Company’s customers who held currency futures and spot positions suffered losses in excess of their deposits with the Company. The Company took immediate action to hedge its exposure to the foreign currency receivables from these customers. The Company estimates the cumulative losses related to this event, net of hedging activity and debt collection efforts, to be approximately $118 million. The Company is actively pursuing collection of the debts. The ultimate effect of this incident on the Company’s results will depend upon the outcome of the Company’s debt collection efforts.

Litigation

The Company is subject to certain pending and threatened legal actions which arise out of the normal course of business. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, particularly in proceedings where claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages, or which are in their early stages. The Company has not been able to quantify the actual loss or range of loss related to such legal proceedings, the manner in which they will be resolved, the timing of final resolution or the ultimate settlement. Management believes that the resolution of these actions will not have a material effect, if any, on the Company’s business or financial condition, but may have a material impact on the results of operations for a given period.

The Company accounts for potential losses related to litigation in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450, “Contingencies.” As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, reserves provided for potential losses related to litigation matters were not material.

Trading Technologies Matter

On February 3, 2010, Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“Trading Technologies”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against IBG, Inc., IBG LLC, Holdings, and IB LLC. Thereafter, Trading Technologies dismissed IBG, Inc. and Holdings from the case, leaving only IBG LLC and IB LLC as defendants (“Defendants”). The operative complaint, as amended, alleges that the Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe twelve U.S. patents held by Trading Technologies. Trading Technologies is seeking, among other things, unspecified damages and injunctive relief (“the Litigation”).

The Defendants filed an answer to Trading Technologies’ amended complaint, as well as related counterclaims. The defendants deny Trading Technologies’ claims, assert that the asserted patents are not infringed and are invalid, and assert several other defenses as well.

Trading Technologies also filed patent infringement lawsuits against approximately a dozen other companies in the same court, many of which are still pending. The Litigation was consolidated with the other lawsuits filed by Trading Technologies.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued decisions instituting Covered Business Method Review (“CBM Review”) on all of the asserted patents and has made a finding that it is more likely than not that the patents are invalid. The District Court granted the Defendants’ motion to stay the Litigation pending the CBM Reviews. On February 17, 2017, the USPTO issued two decisions finding that the claims of one patent are patentable and the claims of another patent are not patentable. On February 28, 2017, the USPTO issued a decision finding that most of the claims of another patent are not patentable and finding three claims of the same patent to be patentable. The Defendants plan to appeal to the extent any claims were held to be patentable.

It is difficult to predict the outcome of the matter, however, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the allegations made in the complaint and intends to defend itself vigorously against them. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and there can be no guarantee that the Company will prevail or that the Litigation can be settled on favorable terms.

Class Action Matter

On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and Thomas Frank, PhD, the Company’s Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that the former customer and members of the purported class of IB LLC’s customers were harmed by alleged “flaws” in the computerized system used by the Company to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On February 19, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint. On September 28, 2016, the Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss and dismissing the complaint in its entirety, and without providing plaintiff leave to amend. On October 5, 2016, the Court entered judgment in the Company’s favor. On October 12, 2016, plaintiff filed motions for leave to file an amended complaint and to vacate or amend judgment, which the Company opposed. The Court has not yet ruled on these motions. We believe that the proposed amended complaint, like the original complaint, lacks merit. Further, even if the complaint ultimately were to survive a motion to dismiss, we do not believe that a purported class action is appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets and many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any particular customer’s margin-deficient account. IB LLC and the related defendants intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously against the case and, consistent with past practice in connection with this type of unwarranted action, any potential claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in defending the case shall be fully pursued against the plaintiff.

Leases

Operating Companies have non‑cancelable operating leases covering office space. All but one of the office space leases are subject to escalation clauses based on specified costs incurred by the respective landlords and contain renewal elections. Rent expense calculated on a straight‑line basis for the Company was $16 million, $14 million and $13 million for the three years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively, and is included in occupancy, depreciation and amortization expenses in the consolidated statements of comprehensive income. As of December 31, 2016, the Company’s minimum annual lease commitments totaled $49 million, as follows:



Year	(in millions)
2017	$	14
2018		13
2019		4
2020		4
2021		4
Thereafter		10
	$	49

Guarantees

Certain of the Operating Companies provide guarantees to securities and commodities clearing houses and exchanges which meet the accounting definition of a guarantee under FASB ASC Topic 460, “Guarantees.” Under standard membership agreements, clearing house and exchange members are required to guarantee collectively the performance of other members. Under the agreements, if a member becomes unable to satisfy its obligations, other members would be required to meet shortfalls. In the opinion of management, the Operating Companies’ liability under these arrangements is not quantifiable and could exceed the cash and securities they have posted as collateral. However, the potential for these Operating Companies to be required to make payments under these arrangements is remote. Accordingly, no contingent liability is carried in the consolidated statements of financial condition for these arrangements.

In connection with its retail brokerage business, IB LLC or other electronic brokerage Operating Companies perform securities and commodities execution, clearance and settlement on behalf of their customers for whom they commit to settle trades submitted by such customers with the respective clearing houses. If a customer fails to fulfill its settlement obligations, the respective Operating Company must fulfill those settlement obligations. No contingent liability is carried on the consolidated statements of financial condition for such customer obligations.

Other Commitments

Certain clearing houses, clearing banks and firms used by certain Operating Companies are given a security interest in certain assets of those Operating Companies held by those clearing organizations. These assets may be applied to satisfy the obligations of those Operating Companies to the respective clearing organizations.