Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND REGULATORY MATTERS

| --- | --- | --- |

The securities and commodities industry is highly regulated and many aspects of our business involve substantial risk of liability. In recent years, there has been an increasing incidence of litigation involving the brokerage industry, including class action suits that generally seek substantial damages, including in some cases punitive damages. Compliance and trading problems that are reported to federal, state and provincial regulators, exchanges or other self-regulatory organizations by dissatisfied customers are investigated by such regulatory bodies, and, if pursued by such regulatory body or such customers, may rise to the level of arbitration or disciplinary action. We are also subject to periodic regulatory audits and inspections.

Like other brokerage firms, we have been named as a defendant in lawsuits and from time to time we have been threatened with, or named as a defendant in arbitrations and administrative proceedings. The following contains information regarding potentially material pending litigation and pending regulatory inquiries. We may in the future become involved in additional litigation or regulatory proceedings in the ordinary course of our business, including litigation or regulatory proceedings that could be material to our business.

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. The Litigation was consolidated with the other lawsuits filed by Trading Technologies.

The Defendants and/or certain codefendants filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for Covered Business Method Review (“CBM Review”) on the asserted patents. The District Court granted the Defendants’ motion to stay the Litigation pending the CBM Reviews. The USPTO Patent Trial and 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.

On February 13, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued opinions in the appeals on four patents from the CBM Review determinations. The Federal Circuit vacated the CBM Review determinations of invalidity for these four patents, concluding that these patents were not eligible for CBM Review. At the Federal Circuit’s request, the parties filed letter briefs on February 22, 2019, stating how the Federal Circuit should proceed with the other pending appeals. On February 26, 2019, the District Court ordered that the stay be lifted with respect to the four patents that are the subject of the Federal Circuit decision and scheduled trial for February 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 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 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 requesting that the District Court dismiss the remaining negligence claims. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the 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.

Pending Regulatory Inquiries

Our businesses are heavily regulated by state, federal and foreign regulatory agencies as well as numerous exchanges and self-regulatory organizations. Most of our companies are regulated under some or all of the following: state securities laws, U.S. and foreign securities, commodities and financial services laws and the rules of the more than 120 exchanges, market centers and self-regulatory organizations of which one or more of our companies may be members. In the current era of dramatically heightened regulatory scrutiny of financial institutions, we have incurred increased compliance costs, along with the industry as a whole. Increased regulation also creates increased barriers to entry. We have built and continue to build human and automated infrastructure to handle increased regulatory scrutiny, which provides us with a possible advantage over potential newcomers to the business.

We receive thousands of regulatory inquiries each year in addition to being subject to frequent regulatory examinations. The great majority of these inquiries do not lead to fines or any further action against us. Most often, regulators do not inform us as to when and if an inquiry has been concluded. We are currently the subject of active or dormant regulatory inquiries regarding subjects including, but not limited to: audit trail reporting, trade reporting, best execution and order execution procedures, short sales, margin lending, anti-money laundering, procedures for trading and handling low-priced securities, procedures for accounts introduced by financial advisors and other referrers, technology development practices, business continuity planning and other topics of recent regulatory interest. The Company has procedures for evaluating whether potential regulatory fines are probable, estimable and material and for updating its contingency reserves and disclosures accordingly. In the current climate, we expect to pay significant and increasing regulatory fines on various topics on an ongoing basis, as other regulated financial services businesses do. The amount of any fines, and when and if they will be incurred, typically is impossible to predict given the nature of the regulatory process.