Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies In the ordinary course of business, the Company from time to time enters into contracts containing indemnification obligations of the Company. These obligations may require the Company to make payments to another party upon the occurrence of certain events including the failure by the Company to meet its performance obligations under the contract. These contractual indemnification provisions are often standard contractual terms of the nature customarily found in the type of contracts entered into by the Company. In many cases, there are no stated or notional amounts included in the indemnification provisions. There are no amounts reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021 related to these indemnifications. Stanford Trust Company Litigation SEI has been named in seven lawsuits filed in Louisiana courts; four of the cases also name SPTC as a defendant. The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the purported role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The complaints allege that SEI and SPTC participated in some manner in the sale of “certificates of deposit” issued by Stanford International Bank so as to be a “seller” of the certificates of deposit for purposes of primary liability under the Louisiana Securities Law or so as to be secondarily liable under that statute for sales of certificates of deposit made by Stanford Trust Company. Two of the actions also include claims for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy, and a third also asserts claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act, and conspiracy. This litigation is comprised of two federal class actions that are based on similar theories, the Lillie and the Adhers litigations, and five ancillary but related actions, all of which have all been dormant as the Lillie and Adhers matters were litigated. All claims in the Lillie and Adhers litigations have been dismissed by the United States District Court. These dismissals have been upheld on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The only potential recourse left for plaintiffs is to seek a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court for leave to appeal to the Fifth Circuit decision. The plaintiffs in these actions did not seek a writ of certiorari within the time period for filing, consequently these matters are now closed. SEI is also named as a relief defendant in another matter, Janvey v. Alguire, where SEI is not a defendant but custodian of the assets subject to the litigation. While SEI expects all remaining ancillary litigations to be resolved in its favor, counsel is in the process of having these cases dismissed as a consequence of the final resolution of the Lillie and Adhers class action litigations: •In two of the state cases pending in the District Court in Louisiana, Milford Wampold, III, et. al. v. Pershing, LLC, et. al., and Numa L. Marquette, et al. v. Pershing, LLC, et. al., both plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss all claims against SEI, and SEI and plaintiffs will be filing joint motions to dismiss with prejudice plaintiffs’ claims against SEI and SPTC. •The two other state cases, Farr and Rolland, are based on similar claims as in Lillie and Adhers, and plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as in the Lillie matter. The Company is awaiting receipt of information requested from plaintiff’s counsel concerning individuals that opted out of the Lillie class prior to seeking dismissal of these two matters based on the Lille and Adhers precedent. •The last action in federal court, Jackson, remains pending. The opt-out information the Company is gathering from plaintiff’s counsel in the Lillie matter will inform next steps in the process to dismiss this matter. While the ultimate outcome of this litigation remains uncertain, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Because of uncertainty in the make-up of the Lillie class, the specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the relative lack of discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with respect to the foregoing lawsuits. SS&C Advent Litigation On February 28, 2020, SEI Global Services, Inc. (SGSI), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, filed a complaint under seal in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against SS&C Advent (Advent) and SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. (SS&C) alleging that SS&C and Advent breached the terms of the contract between the parties and asking the Court to hold SS&C and Advent to their bargained-for obligations (the Advent Matter). In addition to Breach of Contract, the complaint also includes counts for Declaratory Judgment, Tortious Interference with Existing and Prospective Contractual Relations, Violation of the New York General Business Law Section 349, Violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Promissory Estoppel and Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. SGSI seeks various forms of relief, including declaratory judgment, specific performance under the contract, and monetary damages, including punitive damages, treble damages and attorney’s fees. Following various procedural actions, including an amendment of SGSI’s complaint to include additional breach of contract claims, Advent filed a motion to dismiss SGSI’s complaint. On October 23, 2020, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed SEI’s federal antitrust claims and declined to rule on the state law claims on the basis that in the absence of the anti-trust claim, the court had no jurisdiction over the state law claims. SGSI has appealed the dismissal of the federal anti-trust claims to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which is currently pending. Since October 23, 2020, Advent and SGSI have been litigating the remaining breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference with contract claims in New York State Court. Additionally, SGSI made motions for injunctive relief to insure that Advent provided SGSI with access to the Geneva, Moxy and APX software modules as SGSI believes is required pursuant to the terms of a valid contract. On January 13, 2021, Judge Borrok of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, granted SGSI’s motion for injunctive relief and issued an Order in which he characterized the basis for Advent’s claim for breach of contract as appearing to be “pre-textual” and found that SGSI’s claims for breach of contract would likely succeed on the merits. Judge Borrok granted SGSI’s motion for injunctive relief, on a preliminary basis, and precluded SS&C Advent from: •Dishonoring their contractual obligations and commitments under the SLSA, including, denying SEI’s licenses, rights, and privileges under the SLSA; • Failing to provide new license keys for the license keys due to Geneva, Moxy, and APX, and other software products licensed by SEI pursuant to the SLSA (such new license keys to be provided no later than January 15, 2021 at 10 A.M.); • Denying to SEI any and all access to the Geneva, Moxy, and APX software and related modules as are reasonably necessary to provide access to such software to SEI’s clients; and • Denying to SEI any and all support, maintenance and technical support services for Geneva, Moxy, and APX. Pursuant to the Court's injunction order, SS&C Advent provided SEI with the necessary access to the Geneva, Moxy and APX software modules on January 14, 2021. These were tested, verified and are now running in the SEI production environment. On January 15, 2021, SS&C Advent appealed Judge Borrok’s order granting SEI’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the injunction order on June 15, 2021. On March 1, 2021, SS&C Advent moved to dismiss SGSI’s breach of contract and tortious interference with contract counter claims. These counter-claims were: 1.breach of contract; 2.declaratory judgment; 3.tortious interference with existing and prospective contractual relations; 4.deceptive trade practices in violation of New York Statutes; 5.breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and 6.promissory estoppel. The parties agreed to toll the litigation while endeavoring to resolve their dispute through a settlement mediation process moderated by Judge Borrok. The parties were unable to reach an agreement as to a settlement of the litigation and reengaged in the litigation process. On October 5, 2021, Judge Borrok issued an order partially denying and partially granting SS&C’s Advent’s motion to dismiss SGSI’s breach of contract and tortious interference with contract counter claims. Judge Borrok dismissed the third claim with respect to prospective contractual relationships only, as well as the fourth claim and the sixth claim. The remaining claims directed to proceed were: 1.breach of contract; 2.declaratory judgment; 3.tortious interference with existing a contractual relations; and 4.breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On December 1, 2021, SGSI filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the New York state court action. This motion applies to Count I of SS&C Advent’s complaint (SS&C Advent’s request for a declaratory judgment that its termination of the SGSI license agreements was proper); and Counts I and II of SGSI’s counterclaims (SGSI’s request for a declaratory judgment that SS&C Advent’s termination of the contract was improper because the licenses are perpetual unless SGSI chooses to not renew them or breaches the terms). SS&C Advent filed a cross-motion for summary judgment for a declaration that it was entitled to not renew SGSI's contracts. It also argued that if SGSI prevailed on its breach of contract claims, then its breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claim must be dismissed in turn. On December 7, 2021, SGSI filed its appellate brief with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. SS&C Advent filed its appellate brief on January 7, 2022. SGSI filed its Reply brief on January 27, 2022. A disposition date, which could include oral argument, before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals currently is scheduled for June 10, 2022. On December 31, 2021, SGSI received the license key for another year of access to the product. This ensures SGSI access to Advent and Moxy through January 31, 2023. On April 15, 2022, Judge Borrok held a hearing on SGSI’s motion for partial summary judgement and issued an order on the same day granting SGSI's motion in its entirety and denying SS&C's cross motion. Specifically, the Court: 1.Rejected SS&C Advent's argument that the license is not perpetual; 2.Determined that SS&C Advent's purported termination was "pretextual" and breached the parties' contract; 3.Determined that SS&C Advent's attempt to not renew breached the parties' contracts because "Advent did not have the right not to renew," after dismissing SS&C Advent's argument that it shared the same nonrenewal rights as SGSI as a "false narrative;" and 4.Rejected SS&C Advent's second attempt to dismiss SGSI's breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claim. SEI continues to believe that it will not have to change providers under the current terms of its contract with SS&C Advent and that the process of litigating its rights under this contract may be a multi-year process. SEI believes SGSI has a strong basis for proving the actions it alleges in the Advent Matter and looks forward to the opportunity to pursue its remaining tort and breach of implied covenant and good faith and fair dealing claims continue to assert all of its rights in tort and under the contract and prove the damages that it has suffered as a consequence of the behavior by SS&C Advent that SGSI alleges. SEI expects the financial impact of litigating the Advent Matter to be immaterial. Other Matters The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are party to various other examinations, investigations, actions and claims arising in the normal course of business that the Company does not believe are material. The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or the manner in which the Company conducts its business. Currently, the Company does not believe the amount of losses associated with these matters can be estimated. While the Company does not believe that the amount of such losses will, when liquidated or estimable, be material to its financial position, the assumptions may be incorrect and any such loss could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or the manner in which the Company conducts its business in the period(s) during which the underlying matters are resolved.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company from time to time enters into contracts containing indemnification obligations of the Company. These obligations may require the Company to make payments to another party upon the occurrence of certain events including the failure by the Company to meet its performance obligations under the contract. These contractual indemnification provisions are often standard contractual terms of the nature customarily found in the type of contracts entered into by the Company. In many cases, there are no stated or notional amounts included in the indemnification provisions. There are no amounts reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021 related to these indemnifications.

SEI has been named in seven lawsuits filed in Louisiana courts; four of the cases also name SPTC as a defendant. The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the purported role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The complaints allege that SEI and SPTC participated in some manner in the sale of “certificates of deposit” issued by Stanford International Bank so as to be a “seller” of the certificates of deposit for purposes of primary liability under the Louisiana Securities Law or so as to be secondarily liable under that statute for sales of certificates of deposit made by Stanford Trust Company. Two of the actions also include claims for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy, and a third also asserts claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,

This litigation is comprised of two federal class actions that are based on similar theories, the Lillie and the Adhers litigations, and five ancillary but related actions, all of which have all been dormant as the Lillie and Adhers matters were litigated.

All claims in the Lillie and Adhers litigations have been dismissed by the United States District Court. These dismissals have been upheld on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The only potential recourse left for plaintiffs is to seek a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court for leave to appeal to the Fifth Circuit decision. The plaintiffs in these actions did not seek a writ of certiorari within the time period for filing, consequently these matters are now closed.

While SEI expects all remaining ancillary litigations to be resolved in its favor, counsel is in the process of having these cases dismissed as a consequence of the final resolution of the Lillie and Adhers class action litigations:

•In two of the state cases pending in the District Court in Louisiana, Milford Wampold, III, et. al. v. Pershing, LLC, et. al., and Numa L. Marquette, et al. v. Pershing, LLC, et. al., both plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss all claims against SEI, and SEI and plaintiffs will be filing joint motions to dismiss with prejudice plaintiffs’ claims against SEI and SPTC.

•The two other state cases, Farr and Rolland, are based on similar claims as in Lillie and Adhers, and plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as in the Lillie matter. The Company is awaiting receipt of information requested from plaintiff’s counsel concerning individuals that opted out of the Lillie class prior to seeking dismissal of these two matters based on the Lille and Adhers precedent.

•The last action in federal court, Jackson, remains pending. The opt-out information the Company is gathering from plaintiff’s counsel in the Lillie matter will inform next steps in the process to dismiss this matter.

While the ultimate outcome of this litigation remains uncertain, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Because of uncertainty in the make-up of the Lillie class, the specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the relative lack of discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with respect to the foregoing lawsuits.

On February 28, 2020, SEI Global Services, Inc. (SGSI), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, filed a complaint under seal in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against SS&C Advent (Advent) and SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. (SS&C) alleging that SS&C and Advent breached the terms of the contract between the parties and asking the Court to hold SS&C and Advent to their bargained-for obligations (the Advent Matter). In addition to Breach of Contract, the complaint also includes counts for Declaratory Judgment, Tortious Interference with Existing and Prospective Contractual Relations, Violation of the New York General Business Law Section 349, Violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Promissory Estoppel and Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. SGSI seeks various forms of relief, including declaratory judgment, specific performance under the contract, and monetary damages, including punitive damages, treble damages and attorney’s fees.

On October 23, 2020, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed SEI’s federal antitrust claims and declined to rule on the state law claims on the basis that in the absence of the anti-trust claim, the court had no jurisdiction over the state law claims. SGSI has appealed the dismissal of the federal anti-trust claims to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which is currently pending.

Since October 23, 2020, Advent and SGSI have been litigating the remaining breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference with contract claims in New York State Court. Additionally, SGSI made motions for injunctive relief to insure that Advent provided SGSI with access to the Geneva, Moxy and APX software modules as SGSI believes is required pursuant to the terms of a valid contract. On January 13, 2021, Judge Borrok of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, granted SGSI’s motion for injunctive relief and issued an Order in which he characterized the basis for Advent’s claim for breach of contract as appearing to be “pre-textual” and found that SGSI’s claims for breach of contract would likely succeed on the merits. Judge Borrok granted SGSI’s motion for injunctive relief, on a preliminary basis, and precluded SS&C Advent from:

• Failing to provide new license keys for the license keys due to Geneva, Moxy, and APX, and other software products licensed by SEI pursuant to the SLSA (such new license keys to be provided no later than January 15, 2021 at 10 A.M.);

Pursuant to the Court's injunction order, SS&C Advent provided SEI with the necessary access to the Geneva, Moxy and APX software modules on January 14, 2021. These were tested, verified and are now running in the SEI production environment.

On January 15, 2021, SS&C Advent appealed Judge Borrok’s order granting SEI’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the injunction order on June 15, 2021.

The parties agreed to toll the litigation while endeavoring to resolve their dispute through a settlement mediation process moderated by Judge Borrok. The parties were unable to reach an agreement as to a settlement of the litigation and reengaged in the litigation process.

On October 5, 2021, Judge Borrok issued an order partially denying and partially granting SS&C’s Advent’s motion to dismiss SGSI’s breach of contract and tortious interference with contract counter claims.

On December 1, 2021, SGSI filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the New York state court action. This motion applies to Count I of SS&C Advent’s complaint (SS&C Advent’s request for a declaratory judgment that its termination of the SGSI license agreements was proper); and Counts I and II of SGSI’s counterclaims (SGSI’s request for a declaratory judgment that SS&C Advent’s termination of the contract was improper because the licenses are perpetual unless SGSI chooses to not renew them or breaches the terms). SS&C Advent filed a cross-motion for summary judgment for a declaration that it was entitled to not renew SGSI's contracts. It also argued that if SGSI prevailed on its breach of contract claims, then its breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claim must be dismissed in turn.

On December 7, 2021, SGSI filed its appellate brief with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. SS&C Advent filed its appellate brief on January 7, 2022. SGSI filed its Reply brief on January 27, 2022. A disposition date, which could include oral argument, before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals currently is scheduled for June 10, 2022. On December 31, 2021, SGSI received the license key for another year of access to the product. This ensures SGSI access to Advent and Moxy through January 31, 2023.

On April 15, 2022, Judge Borrok held a hearing on SGSI’s motion for partial summary judgement and issued an order on the same day granting SGSI's motion in its entirety and denying SS&C's cross motion. Specifically, the Court:

3.Determined that SS&C Advent's attempt to not renew breached the parties' contracts because "Advent did not have the right not to renew," after dismissing SS&C Advent's argument that it shared the same nonrenewal rights as SGSI as a "false narrative;" and

SEI continues to believe that it will not have to change providers under the current terms of its contract with SS&C Advent and that the process of litigating its rights under this contract may be a multi-year process.

SEI believes SGSI has a strong basis for proving the actions it alleges in the Advent Matter and looks forward to the opportunity to pursue its remaining tort and breach of implied covenant and good faith and fair dealing claims continue to assert all of its rights in tort and under the contract and prove the damages that it has suffered as a consequence of the behavior by SS&C Advent that SGSI alleges. SEI expects the financial impact of litigating the Advent Matter to be immaterial.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are party to various other examinations, investigations, actions and claims arising in the normal course of business that the Company does not believe are material. The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or the manner in which the Company conducts its business. Currently, the Company does not believe the amount of losses associated with these matters can be estimated. While the Company does not believe that the amount of such losses will, when liquidated or estimable, be material to its financial position, the assumptions may be incorrect and any such loss could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or the manner in which the Company conducts its business in the period(s) during which the underlying matters are resolved.