Commitments, Contingencies And Guarantees	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2023
Commitments, Contingencies And Guarantees [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies And Guarantees	13. Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees 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 September 30, 2023 and 2022, 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 (the “District Court”), against IBG LLC and IB LLC (the “Defendants”). The complaint, as amended, alleged that the Defendants infringed twelve U.S. patents held by Trading Technologies. Trading Technologies sought damages and injunctive relief. The Defendants asserted numerous defenses to Trading Technologies’ claims. 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 the Defendants or Trading Technologies on all PTAB determinations. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s CBM Review determinations that eight patents were invalid and vacated the CBM Review determinations of invalidity for four patents, concluding that these patents were not eligible for CBM Review. The District Court proceedings on the four patents where the CBM Review determinations had been vacated thereafter resumed in March 2019. All four patents have since expired. In June 2021, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, finding that two of the remaining four patents were invalid. The District Court trial with respect to the two remaining patents began on August 6, 2021. At trial, Trading Technologies sought damages of $962.4 million and a finding of willful infringement to support a later request for an award of enhanced damages. The Defendants believed and continue to believe that Trading Technologies’ damages request was unrealistic and without merit, and was inconsistent with license agreements involving the same patents and with prior settlement agreements with unrelated third parties. On September 7, 2021, the jury rendered its verdict finding that the Defendants infringed the two patents, but did not willfully infringe either patent, finding that the two patents were not invalid and awarding $6.6 million in damages to Trading Technologies. On October 5, 2021, Trading Technologies filed motions for a new trial on damages and willfulness, and to amend the judgment to include pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On October 7, 2021, Trading Technologies filed a Bill of Costs seeking to recover certain litigation costs. The Defendants opposed each of these motions. On December 21, 2021, Trading Technologies filed a motion seeking to substitute Harris Brumfield (through a trust controlled by Brumfield) as the plaintiff. The Defendants did not oppose the substitution. On January 11, 2022, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Trading Technologies’ motion seeking pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, denying the amount Trading Technologies was seeking, but awarding Trading Technologies pre-judgment interest in the amount of $2.1 million and post-judgment interest in an amount to be calculated pursuant to the Court’s orders. On February 22, 2022, the District Court denied in its entirety Trading Technologies’ motion seeking a new trial on damages and willfulness. On March 24, 2022, Harris Brumfield filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the District Court’s judgment, certain other orders of the Court, and generally any and all other orders, rulings, findings, and/or conclusions adverse to Trading Technologies. On March 31, 2022, the District Court granted Trading Technologies’ bill of costs in the amount of $490,232, which was less than the amount Trading Technologies sought. On April 7, 2022, the Defendants filed a notice of cross-appeal. Brumfield’s Opening Brief was filed on August 26, 2022, and the Defendants’ filed an Opposition Brief on November 18, 2022. On December 24, 2022, Brumfield filed a Reply Brief. The appeal is still pending. The Defendants continue to believe in the invalidity of the two patents that were the subject of the jury verdict, and which have expired. While it is difficult to predict the ultimate outcome of the matter and litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company believes in the merits of its positions and will defend them vigorously. 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 a 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, the 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 11, 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. The plaintiff served a motion for class certification on March 18, 2022, which the Company opposed. On March 25, 2022, the plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint, which was granted on July 5, 2022. The plaintiff filed his third amended complaint on July 14, 2022. The Company’s answer was filed on July 26, 2022. On August 25, 2023, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification, certifying a class that consists of IB LLC account holders (with some exclusions) who had positions liquidated from December 18, 2013 to the date of trial at prices outside of a “pricing corridor” defined in the Court’s decision. On September 8, 2023, the Company filed a petition for permission to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, seeking an interlocutory appeal of the District Court’s class certification decision. Plaintiff opposed the petition, which is now fully briefed and sub judice. 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. On October 17, 2023, the District Court approved a scheduling order for the remainder of the case, 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 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. In March 2023, IB LLC certified that it had adopted all of the recommendations contained in the consultant’s final report of January 2023. 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. In November 2022, the SEC sent IB LLC and Interactive Brokers Corp. (“IB Corp.”) a request for information related to the their compliance with records preservation requirements relating to business communications sent over electronic messaging channels that IB LLC and IB Corp. had not approved. In April 2023, the CFTC sent a similar request. On September 29, 2023, IB LLC and IB Corp. entered into settlements with the SEC and CFTC to resolve their investigations. Under the terms of the settlements, IB LLC and IB Corp. together paid $35 million to the SEC and $20 million to the CFTC, and agreed to cease and desist from further violations of certain records preservation requirements, to engage an independent compliance consultant and to implement improvements to its related compliance policies and procedures. ‎ 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.

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 September 30, 2023 and 2022, 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 (the “District Court”), against IBG LLC and IB LLC (the “Defendants”). The complaint, as amended, alleged that the Defendants infringed twelve U.S. patents held by Trading Technologies. Trading Technologies sought damages and injunctive relief. The Defendants asserted numerous defenses to Trading Technologies’ claims.

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 the Defendants or Trading Technologies on all PTAB determinations.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s CBM Review determinations that eight patents were invalid and vacated the CBM Review determinations of invalidity for four patents, concluding that these patents were not eligible for CBM Review. The District Court proceedings on the four patents where the CBM Review determinations had been vacated thereafter resumed in March 2019. All four patents have since expired.

In June 2021, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, finding that two of the remaining four patents were invalid. The District Court trial with respect to the two remaining patents began on August 6, 2021. At trial, Trading Technologies sought damages of $962.4 million and a finding of willful infringement to support a later request for an award of enhanced damages. The Defendants believed and continue to believe that Trading Technologies’ damages request was unrealistic and without merit, and was inconsistent with license agreements involving the same patents and with prior settlement agreements with unrelated third parties.

On September 7, 2021, the jury rendered its verdict finding that the Defendants infringed the two patents, but did not willfully infringe either patent, finding that the two patents were not invalid and awarding $6.6 million in damages to Trading Technologies.

On October 5, 2021, Trading Technologies filed motions for a new trial on damages and willfulness, and to amend the judgment to include pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On October 7, 2021, Trading Technologies filed a Bill of Costs seeking to recover certain litigation costs. The Defendants opposed each of these motions. On December 21, 2021, Trading Technologies filed a motion seeking to substitute Harris Brumfield (through a trust controlled by Brumfield) as the plaintiff. The Defendants did not oppose the substitution. On January 11, 2022, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Trading Technologies’ motion seeking pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, denying the amount Trading Technologies was seeking, but awarding Trading Technologies pre-judgment interest in the amount of $2.1 million and post-judgment interest in an amount to be calculated pursuant to the Court’s orders. On February 22, 2022, the District Court denied in its entirety Trading Technologies’ motion seeking a new trial on damages and willfulness. On March 24, 2022, Harris Brumfield filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the District Court’s judgment, certain other orders of the Court, and generally any and all other orders, rulings, findings, and/or conclusions adverse to Trading Technologies. On March 31, 2022, the District Court granted Trading Technologies’ bill of costs in the amount of $490,232, which was less than the amount Trading Technologies sought. On April 7, 2022, the Defendants filed a notice of cross-appeal. Brumfield’s Opening Brief was filed on August 26, 2022, and the Defendants’ filed an Opposition Brief on November 18, 2022. On December 24, 2022, Brumfield filed a Reply Brief. The appeal is still pending. The Defendants continue to believe in the invalidity of the two patents that were the subject of the jury verdict, and which have expired. While it is difficult to predict the

ultimate outcome of the matter and litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company believes in the merits of its positions and will defend them vigorously.

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 a 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, the 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 11, 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. The plaintiff served a motion for class certification on March 18, 2022, which the Company opposed. On March 25, 2022, the plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint, which was granted on July 5, 2022. The plaintiff filed his third amended complaint on July 14, 2022. The Company’s answer was filed on July 26, 2022.

On August 25, 2023, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification, certifying a class that consists of IB LLC account holders (with some exclusions) who had positions liquidated from December 18, 2013 to the date of trial at prices outside of a “pricing corridor” defined in the Court’s decision. On September 8, 2023, the Company filed a petition for permission to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, seeking an interlocutory appeal of the District Court’s class certification decision. Plaintiff opposed the petition, which is now fully briefed and sub judice. 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. On October 17, 2023, the District Court approved a scheduling order for the remainder of the case, 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 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. In March 2023, IB LLC certified that it had adopted all of the recommendations contained in the consultant’s final report of January 2023. 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.

In November 2022, the SEC sent IB LLC and Interactive Brokers Corp. (“IB Corp.”) a request for information related to the their compliance with records preservation requirements relating to business communications sent over electronic messaging channels that IB LLC and IB Corp. had not approved. In April 2023, the CFTC sent a similar request. On September 29, 2023, IB LLC and IB Corp. entered into settlements with the SEC and CFTC to resolve their investigations. Under the terms of the settlements, IB LLC and IB Corp. together paid $35 million to the SEC and $20 million to the CFTC, and agreed to cease and desist from further violations of certain records preservation requirements, to engage an independent compliance consultant and to implement improvements to its related compliance policies and procedures.

‎

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.