Commitments, Contingencies And Guarantees	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2021
Commitments, Contingencies And Guarantees [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies And Guarantees	13. Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees Claims Against Customers Over an extended period in 2018, a small number of the Company’s 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 have caused these accounts to fall into deficits, despite the Company’s efforts to liquidate the customers’ positions. As of March 31, 2021, the Company has recognized an aggregate loss of approximately $44 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 continues to evaluate 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. Legal, Regulatory and Governmental Matters The Company is subject to certain pending and threatened legal, regulatory and governmental actions and proceedings that arise out of the normal course of business. Given the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, particularly in proceedings where claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages, or which are in their early stages, the Company is generally not 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 their final resolution or the ultimate settlement. Management believes that the resolution of these matters 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 March 31, 2021 and 2020, accruals for potential losses related to legal, regulatory and governmental actions, and proceedings 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 August 2, 2021. 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, Ph.D., 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. The Court denied the Company’s motion to certify on May 15, 2020. Currently, Plaintiff’s motion for class certification is due on November 1, 2021. 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. “Short Squeeze” Antitrust Litigation Since late January 2021, more than three dozen federal class action lawsuits have been filed in different jurisdictions against various brokers and other market participants claiming that the defendants acted improperly in restricting trading in the shares of and options on GameStop Corp. and other companies that were subject to unusual trading in January 2021 in what has been referred to as the “Reddit-related short-squeeze”. Most of these cases assert federal antitrust claims, including alleging an illegal antitrust conspiracy among the defendants, as well as various state and federal securities-related claims. IB LLC and its affiliates have been named as defendants in nine of these class action lawsuits. These cases have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”), and were transferred to the Southern District of Florida on April 1, 2021 for pre-trial proceedings. All discovery has been stayed until amended complaints are filed, and issues regarding the timing of amended complaints and responses to the allegations therein will be addressed by the MDL court at a future date. The time for IB LLC and its affiliates to respond to the allegations will likely be stayed during the pendency of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation proceedings. The Company believes that the claims asserted against IB LLC and its affiliates lack merit on their face and the Company intends to file, at the appropriate time, a motion to dismiss any class action that might name IB LLC and its affiliates as defendants. Regulatory Matters The Company is subject to regulatory oversight and examination by numerous governmental and self-regulatory authorities. As announced on August 10, 2020, the Company agreed to settle certain matters related to its historical anti-money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act practices and procedures with FINRA, the SEC and the CFTC. As part of the settlements, the Company agreed to pay penalties of $15 million to FINRA, $11.5 million to the SEC and $11.5 million to the CFTC, plus approximately $700,000 in disgorgement. In addition, the Company agreed to continue the retention of an independent consultant to review the implementation of its enhanced compliance practices and procedures. The Company is also cooperating with a United States Department of Justice inquiry concerning these matters, and while its outcome cannot be predicted, the Company does not believe that the resolution of this inquiry is 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 condensed 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 condensed 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.

Over an extended period in 2018, a small number of the Company’s 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 have caused these accounts to fall into deficits, despite the Company’s efforts to liquidate the customers’ positions. As of March 31, 2021, the Company has recognized an aggregate loss of approximately $44 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 continues to evaluate 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.

The Company is subject to certain pending and threatened legal, regulatory and governmental actions and proceedings that arise out of the normal course of business. Given the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, particularly in proceedings where claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages, or which are in their early stages, the Company is generally

not 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 their final resolution or the ultimate settlement. Management believes that the resolution of these matters 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 March 31, 2021 and 2020, accruals for potential losses related to legal, regulatory and governmental actions, and proceedings matters were not material.

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 August 2, 2021.

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, Ph.D., 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. The Court denied the Company’s motion to certify on May 15, 2020. Currently, Plaintiff’s motion for class certification is due on November 1, 2021. 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.

“Short Squeeze” Antitrust Litigation

Since late January 2021, more than three dozen federal class action lawsuits have been filed in different jurisdictions against various brokers and other market participants claiming that the defendants acted improperly in restricting trading in the shares of and options on GameStop Corp. and other companies that were subject to unusual trading in January 2021 in what has been referred to as the “Reddit-related short-squeeze”. Most of these cases assert federal antitrust claims, including alleging an illegal antitrust conspiracy among the defendants, as well as various state and federal securities-related claims. IB LLC and its affiliates have been named as defendants in nine of these class action lawsuits. These cases have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”), and were transferred to the Southern District of Florida on April 1, 2021 for pre-trial proceedings. All discovery has been stayed until amended complaints are filed, and issues regarding the timing of amended complaints and responses to the allegations therein will be addressed by the MDL court at a future date. The time for IB LLC and its affiliates to respond to the allegations will likely be stayed during the pendency of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation proceedings. The Company believes that the claims asserted against IB LLC and its affiliates lack merit on their face and the Company intends to file, at the appropriate time, a motion to dismiss any class action that might name IB LLC and its affiliates as defendants.

Regulatory Matters

The Company is subject to regulatory oversight and examination by numerous governmental and self-regulatory authorities. As announced on August 10, 2020, the Company agreed to settle certain matters related to its historical anti-money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act practices and procedures with FINRA, the SEC and the CFTC. As part of the settlements, the Company agreed to pay penalties of $15 million to FINRA, $11.5 million to the SEC and $11.5 million to the CFTC, plus approximately $700,000 in disgorgement. In addition, the Company agreed to continue the retention of an independent consultant to review the implementation of its enhanced compliance practices and procedures. The Company is also cooperating with a United States Department of Justice inquiry concerning these matters, and while its outcome cannot be predicted, the Company does not believe that the resolution of this inquiry is 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 condensed 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 condensed consolidated statements of financial condition for such customer obligations.