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 June 30, 2025 and 2024, accruals for potential losses related to legal, regulatory and governmental actions and proceedings matters were not material.

Trading Technologies Matter

As previously disclosed, 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, and sought damages and injunctive relief.

After proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial Appeal Board, and review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, all but four patents were found to be invalid. In June 2021, the District Court found two of the remaining four patents to be invalid, and trial on the two remaining patents began on August 6, 2021. On September 7, 2021, the jury rendered its verdict, finding that the Defendants infringed the two patents and awarding $6.6 million in damages to Trading Technologies, while rejecting Trading Technologies’ claims of willful infringement and request for damages of at least $962.4 million. On January 11, 2022, the District Court awarded Trading Technologies pre-judgment interest of $2.1 million and post-judgment interest, and on March 31, 2022, granted Trading Technologies’ bill of costs of $490,232.

On March 24, 2022, Harris Brumfield, the successor-in-interest to the patents-in-suit, filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit. After briefing on the appeal, oral argument was held on January 8, 2024. On March 27, 2024, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. On May 15, 2024, Harris Brumfield petitioned the Federal Circuit for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. On August 5, 2024, the Federal Circuit denied the petition and issued the mandate of the court on August 12, 2024. Harris Brumfield filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States on January 2, 2025. On April 21, 2025, the Supreme Court denied Harris Brumfield’s petition for certiorari. On May 16, 2025, Harris Brumfield filed a petition for rehearing with the Supreme Court of the United States, which was denied by the Court on June 16, 2025. The judgment amount, including interest and costs, was paid by the Defendants to Harris Brumfield on June 18, 2025.

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 former Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleged 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 sought, 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, without 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 remanded plaintiff’s claims for negligence back to the District Court. The Company’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s subsequent second amended complaint was denied on September 30, 2019. On July 14, 2022, after obtaining leave to amend his complaint, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The Company’s answer and counterclaim were 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 who are U.S. residents (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 the District Court’s class certification decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which denied the Company’s petition on December 19, 2023. On July 11, 2025, the District Court granted the parties’ joint motion to amend the definition of the certified class so that it ends on July 14, 2025 (leaving all other aspects of the District Court’s initial class certification decision unchanged). The Company continues to believe that a purported class action is inappropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets and many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any particular customer’s margin-deficient account. Pursuant to a District Court scheduling order, trial is tentatively scheduled to commence in 2026. IB LLC and the related defendants continue to believe that the claims are deficient and intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously.

Regulatory Matters

IB LLC identified a number of issues dating back to 2016 related to the Company’s compliance with sanctions regulations, predominantly concerning the facilitation of transactions in countries, or by entities, sanctioned by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the United States Department of the Treasury. The Company made voluntary self-disclosures to OFAC, received additional inquiries from OFAC related to the Company’s sanctions compliance program, and cooperated with the investigation. On July 15, 2025, OFAC announced that IB LLC had agreed to pay OFAC $11,832,136 to settle the matter.

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.