Commitments, Contingencies And Guarantees	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments, Contingencies And Guarantees [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies And Guarantees	14. Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees Claims Against Customers Over an extended period in 2018, a small number of the Company’s brokerage customers had taken relatively large positions in a security listed on a major U.S. exchange. The Company extended margin loans against the security at a conservatively high collateral requirement. In December 2018, within a very short timeframe, this security lost a substantial amount of its value. During the quarter ended March 31, 2019, subsequent price declines in the stock caused these accounts to fall into deficits, despite the Company’s efforts to liquidate the customers’ positions. For the year ended December 31, 2019, the Company has recognized an aggregate loss of approximately $42 million. The maximum aggregate loss, which would occur if the security’s price fell to zero and none of the debts were collected, would be approximately $50 million. The Company is currently evaluating pursuing the collection of the debts, although debt collection efforts are inherently difficult and uncertain. The ultimate effect of this incident on the Company’s results will depend upon market conditions and the outcome of the Company’s debt collection efforts. Litigation The Company is subject to certain pending and threatened legal actions that 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, 2019 and 2018, 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 LLC and IB LLC (“Defendants”). The 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 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. The asserted patents were the subject of petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) seeking Covered Business Method Review (“CBM Review”). The USPTO Patent Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB”) found all claims of ten of the twelve asserted patents to be invalid. Of the remaining two patents, 53 of the 56 claims of one patent were held invalid and the other patent survived CBM Review proceedings. Appeals were filed by either Defendants or Trading Technologies on all PTAB determinations. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the CBM Review determinations of invalidity for four patents, concluding that these patents were not eligible for CBM Review. The District Court trial with respect to these four patents is scheduled for May 2020; however, the parties have filed a motion with the District Court to move the trial to November 2020. While it is difficult to predict the outcome of the matter, 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 purported class of IB LLC’s customers were harmed by alleged “flaws” in the computerized system used 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 September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and without providing plaintiff leave to amend. On September 28, 2017, plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims of breach of contract and commercially unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the District Court plaintiff’s claims for negligence. On November 30, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint on January 15, 2019, which was denied on September 30, 2019. On December 9, 2019, the Company filed a motion requesting that the District Court certify to the Connecticut Supreme Court two questions of Connecticut law directly relevant to the motion to dismiss. Briefing has only recently been completed, and the District Court has not yet ruled on the motion. Regardless of the outcome of this motion, the Company does 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 may be fully pursued against the plaintiff. Regulatory Matters The Company is currently providing information to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the SEC, the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and the United States Department of Justice focused on anti-money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act practices. The Company periodically reviews these practices to make them more robust and to keep pace with changing regulatory standards, and the Company has been enhancing and augmenting its procedures and personnel in these areas over the past several years. While the outcome of the examinations and inquiries currently in progress cannot be predicted, the Company does not believe that they are likely to have a materially adverse effect on its financial results. Guarantees Certain of the operating subsidiaries 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 subsidiaries’ 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 subsidiaries 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 subsidiaries 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 subsidiary 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 subsidiaries are given a security interest in certain assets of those operating subsidiaries held by those clearing organizations. These assets may be applied to satisfy the obligations of those operating subsidiaries to the respective clearing organizations.

14. Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

Claims Against Customers

Over an extended period in 2018, a small number of the Company’s brokerage customers had taken relatively large positions in a security listed on a major U.S. exchange. The Company extended margin loans against the security at a conservatively high collateral requirement. In December 2018, within a very short timeframe, this security lost a substantial amount of its value. During the quarter ended March 31, 2019, subsequent price declines in the stock caused these accounts to fall into deficits, despite the Company’s efforts to liquidate the customers’ positions. For the year ended December 31, 2019, the Company has recognized an aggregate loss of approximately $42 million. The maximum aggregate loss, which would occur if the security’s price fell to zero and none of the debts were collected, would be approximately $50 million. The Company is currently evaluating pursuing the collection of the debts, although debt collection efforts are inherently difficult and uncertain. The ultimate effect of this incident on the Company’s results will depend upon market conditions and the outcome of the Company’s debt collection efforts.

Litigation

The Company is subject to certain pending and threatened legal actions that 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, 2019 and 2018, 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 LLC and IB LLC (“Defendants”). The 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 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.

The asserted patents were the subject of petitions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) seeking Covered Business Method Review (“CBM Review”). The USPTO Patent Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB”) found all claims of ten of the twelve asserted patents to be invalid. Of the remaining two patents, 53 of the 56 claims of one patent were held invalid and the other patent survived CBM Review proceedings. Appeals were filed by either Defendants or Trading Technologies on all PTAB determinations.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the CBM Review determinations of invalidity for four patents, concluding that these patents were not eligible for CBM Review. The District Court trial with respect to these four patents is scheduled for May 2020; however, the parties have filed a motion with the District Court to move the trial to November 2020.

While it is difficult to predict the outcome of the matter, 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 purported class of IB LLC’s customers were harmed by alleged “flaws” in the computerized system used 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 September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and without providing plaintiff leave to amend. On September 28, 2017, plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims of breach of contract and commercially unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the District Court plaintiff’s claims for negligence. On November 30, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint on January 15, 2019, which was denied on September 30, 2019. On December 9, 2019, the Company filed a motion requesting that the District Court certify to the Connecticut Supreme Court two questions of Connecticut law directly relevant to the motion to dismiss. Briefing has only recently been completed, and the District Court has not yet ruled on the motion. Regardless of the outcome of this motion, the Company does 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 may be fully pursued against the plaintiff.

The Company is currently providing information to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the SEC, the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and the United States Department of Justice focused on anti-money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act practices. The Company periodically reviews these practices to make them more robust and to keep pace with changing regulatory standards, and the Company has been enhancing and augmenting its procedures and personnel in these areas over the past several years. While the outcome of the examinations and inquiries currently in progress cannot be predicted, the Company does not believe that they are likely to have a materially adverse effect on its financial results.

Certain of the operating subsidiaries 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 subsidiaries’ 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 subsidiaries 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 subsidiaries 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 subsidiary must fulfill those settlement obligations. No contingent liability is carried on the consolidated statements of financial condition for such customer obligations.