COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND GUARANTEES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2022
COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND GUARANTEES
COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND GUARANTEES	21. COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND GUARANTEES Legal Proceedings As of September 30, 2022, the Company was subject to the various legal proceedings and claims discussed below, as well as certain other legal proceedings and claims that have not been fully resolved and that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. The Company reviews its legal proceedings and claims, regulatory reviews and inspections and other legal proceedings on an ongoing basis and follows appropriate accounting guidance when making accrual and disclosure decisions. The Company establishes accruals for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, and the Company discloses the amount accrued and the amount of a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, if such disclosure is necessary for the condensed consolidated financial statements to not be misleading. The Company does not record liabilities when the likelihood that the liability has been incurred is probable, but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated, or when the liability is believed to be only reasonably possible or remote. The Company’s assessment of whether a loss is remote, reasonably possible, or probable is based on its assessment of the ultimate outcome of the matter following all appeals. As of September 30, 2022, the Company does not believe that there is a reasonable possibility that any material loss exceeding the amounts already recognized for these legal proceedings and claims, regulatory reviews, inspections or other legal proceedings, if any, has been incurred. While the consequences of certain unresolved proceedings are not presently determinable, the outcome of any proceeding is inherently uncertain and an adverse outcome from certain matters could have a material effect on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company in any given reporting period. VIX Litigation On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02025 was filed in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the Company intentionally designed its products, operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value designed by the Company and calculated on the settlement date of VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that could be collusively manipulated by a group of entities named as John Doe defendants. A number of similar putative class actions, some of which did not name the Company as a party, were filed in federal court in Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in certain volatility-related products. On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the putative class actions in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. On September 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed a master, consolidated complaint that is a putative class action alleging various claims against the Company and John Doe defendants in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. The claims asserted against the Company consisted of a Securities Exchange Act fraud claim, three Commodity Exchange Act claims and a state law negligence claim. Plaintiffs requested a judgment awarding class damages in an unspecified amount, as well as punitive or exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, prejudgment interest, costs including attorneys’ and experts’ fees and expenses and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On November 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the master consolidated complaint and the plaintiffs filed their response on January 7, 2019. The Company filed its reply on January 28, 2019. On May 29, 2019, the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Company’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ entire complaint against the Company. The state law negligence claim was dismissed with prejudice and the other claims were dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed on July 19, 2019. On August 28, 2019, the Company filed its second motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint and plaintiffs filed their response on October 8, 2019. On January 27, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Company’s second motion to dismiss and all counts against the Company were dismissed with prejudice. On April 21, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify the January 27, 2020 dismissal order for an immediate appeal. On May 19, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (“7th Circuit”), seeking to appeal the April 21, 2020 order granting the entry of partial final judgment and both orders granting the Company’s motions to dismiss entered on May 29, 2019 and January 27, 2020. On June 29, 2020, plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the 7th Circuit, on August 28, 2020 the Company filed its opposition brief with the 7th Circuit, on September 7, 2020, CME Group Inc., Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and National Futures Association filed an amici curiae brief in support of the Company on the Commodity Exchange Act’s Bad Faith standard with the 7th Circuit and on October 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed their reply brief with the 7th Circuit. Oral arguments were held remotely on November 30, 2020. On July 27, 2022, as amended on July 28, 2022, the 7th Circuit issued its decision affirming the dismissal of all counts against the Company by the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs had until August 10, 2022 to petition the 7th Circuit for a rehearing en banc. Plaintiffs did not file a petition by this deadline. Plaintiffs had until October 25, 2022, to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Plaintiffs did not file a petition by this deadline. This case is now concluded. Other As self-regulatory organizations under the jurisdiction of the SEC, Cboe Options, C2, BZX, BYX, EDGX and EDGA are subject to routine reviews and inspections by the SEC. As a designated contract market under the jurisdiction of the CFTC, CFE, and Cboe Digital Exchange are subject to routine rule enforcement reviews and examinations by the CFTC. As a derivatives clearing organization under the jurisdiction of the CFTC, Cboe Clear Digital is also subject to routine examinations by the CFTC. Cboe Clear Digital is also subject to routine audits and examinations by state regulators. Cboe SEF, LLC is a swap execution facility registered with the CFTC and subject to routine rule enforcement reviews and examinations by the CFTC. Cboe Trading and BIDS Trading are subject to reviews and inspections by FINRA. The Company has from time to time received inquiries and investigative requests from the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations and the CFTC’s Division of Market Oversight as well as the SEC Division of Enforcement and CFTC Division of Enforcement seeking information about the Company’s compliance with its obligations as a self-regulatory organization under the federal securities laws and Commodity Exchange Act as well as members’ compliance with the federal securities laws and Commodity Exchange Act. In addition, while Cboe Europe, Cboe Chi-X Europe, EuroCCP, Cboe NL, Cboe Australia, Cboe Japan, MATCHNow, and NEO have not been the subject of any material litigation or regulatory investigation in the past, there is always the possibility of such action in the future. As Cboe Europe and Cboe Chi-X Europe are domiciled in the UK, it is likely that any action would be taken in the UK courts in relation to litigation or by the FCA in relation to any regulatory enforcement action. As EuroCCP is domiciled in the Netherlands, it is likely that any action would be taken in the Dutch courts in relation to litigation or by the DNB or Dutch Authority for Financial Markets in relation to any regulatory enforcement action. For Cboe NL, also domiciled in the Netherlands, it is likely that any actions would be taken in the Dutch courts in relation to litigation or Dutch Authority for Financial Markets in relation to any regulatory enforcement action. As Cboe Australia is domiciled in Australia, it is likely that any action would be taken in the Australian courts in relation to litigation or by the ASIC, in relation to any regulatory enforcement action. As Cboe Japan is domiciled in Japan, it is likely that any action would be taken in the Japanese courts in relation to litigation or by the JFSA or the JSDA in relation to any regulatory enforcement action. As MATCHNow and NEO are domiciled in Canada, it is likely that any action would be taken in the Canadian courts in relation to litigation or by the IIROC or OSC in relation to any regulatory enforcement action. Cboe Digital has committed to securely store all crypto assets it holds on behalf of users. As such, Cboe Digital may be liable to its users for losses arising from theft or loss of user private keys. Cboe Digital has no reason to believe it will incur any expense associated with such potential liability because (i) it has no known or historical experience of claims to use as a basis of measurement, (ii) it accounts for and continually verifies the amount of crypto assets within its control, and (iii) it has established security around custodial private keys to minimize the risk of theft or loss. There were no loss events impacting safeguarded assets caused by the theft or loss of digital asset user private keys as of September 30, 2022. Since the risk of loss is remote, the Company had not recorded a liability at September 30, 2022. The Company is also currently a party to various other legal proceedings in addition to those already mentioned. Management does not believe that the likely outcome of any of these other reviews, inspections, investigations or other legal proceedings is expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources. See also Note 6 (“Credit Losses”) for information on promissory notes related to the CAT. See also Note 19 (“Income Taxes”). Contractual Obligations The Company has contractual obligations related to licensing agreements with various licensors, some of which included fixed fees and/or variable fees calculated using agreed upon contracted rates and reported cleared volumes. Certain licensing agreements contain annual minimum fee requirements that total between $14.5 and $16.0 million each year for the next five years. NEO has purchase obligations primarily related to software development activities of $1.5 million in total over the next four years. See Note 12 (“Clearing Operations”) for information on the clearinghouse exposure guarantees for EuroCCP and Cboe Digital. See Note 22 (“Leases”) for information on lease obligations.

COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND GUARANTEES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2022

COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND GUARANTEES

COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND GUARANTEES

21. COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND GUARANTEES

Legal Proceedings

As of September 30, 2022, the Company was subject to the various legal proceedings and claims discussed below, as well as certain other legal proceedings and claims that have not been fully resolved and that have arisen in the ordinary course of business.

The Company reviews its legal proceedings and claims, regulatory reviews and inspections and other legal proceedings on an ongoing basis and follows appropriate accounting guidance when making accrual and disclosure decisions. The Company establishes accruals for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, and the Company discloses the amount accrued and the amount of a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, if such disclosure is necessary for the condensed consolidated financial statements to not be misleading. The Company does not record liabilities when the likelihood that the liability has been incurred is probable, but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated, or when the liability is believed to be only reasonably possible or remote. The Company’s assessment of whether a loss is remote, reasonably possible, or probable is based on its assessment of the ultimate outcome of the matter following all appeals.

As of September 30, 2022, the Company does not believe that there is a reasonable possibility that any material loss exceeding the amounts already recognized for these legal proceedings and claims, regulatory reviews, inspections or other legal proceedings, if any, has been incurred. While the consequences of certain unresolved proceedings are not presently determinable, the outcome of any proceeding is inherently uncertain and an adverse outcome from certain matters could have a material effect on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company in any given reporting period.

VIX Litigation

On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02025 was filed in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the Company intentionally designed its products, operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value designed by the Company and calculated on the settlement date of VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that could be collusively manipulated by a group of entities named as John Doe defendants. A number of similar putative class actions, some of which did not name the Company as a party, were filed in federal court in Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in certain volatility-related products. On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the putative class actions in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. On September 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed a master, consolidated complaint that is a putative class action alleging various claims against the Company and John Doe defendants in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. The claims asserted against the Company consisted of a Securities Exchange Act fraud claim, three Commodity Exchange Act claims and a state law negligence claim. Plaintiffs requested a judgment awarding class damages in an unspecified amount, as well as punitive or exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, prejudgment interest, costs including attorneys’ and experts’ fees and expenses and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On November 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the master consolidated complaint and the plaintiffs filed their response on January 7, 2019. The Company filed its reply on January 28, 2019. On May 29, 2019, the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Company’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ entire complaint against the Company. The state law negligence claim was dismissed with prejudice and the other claims were dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed on July 19, 2019. On August 28, 2019, the Company filed its second motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint and plaintiffs filed their response on October 8, 2019. On January 27, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Company’s second motion to dismiss and all counts against the Company were dismissed with prejudice. On April 21, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify the January 27, 2020 dismissal order for an immediate appeal.

On May 19, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (“7th Circuit”), seeking to appeal the April 21, 2020 order granting the entry of partial final judgment and both orders granting the Company’s motions to dismiss entered on May 29, 2019 and January 27, 2020. On June 29, 2020, plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the 7th Circuit, on August 28, 2020 the Company filed its opposition brief with the 7th Circuit, on September 7, 2020, CME Group Inc., Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and National Futures Association filed an amici curiae brief in support of the Company on the Commodity Exchange Act’s Bad Faith standard with the 7th Circuit and on October 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed their reply brief with the 7th Circuit. Oral arguments were held remotely on November 30, 2020. On July 27, 2022, as amended on July 28, 2022, the 7th Circuit issued its decision affirming the dismissal of all counts against the Company by the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs had until August 10, 2022 to petition the 7th Circuit for a rehearing en banc. Plaintiffs did not file a petition by this deadline. Plaintiffs had until October 25, 2022, to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Plaintiffs did not file a petition by this deadline. This case is now concluded.

Other

As self-regulatory organizations under the jurisdiction of the SEC, Cboe Options, C2, BZX, BYX, EDGX and EDGA are subject to routine reviews and inspections by the SEC. As a designated contract market under the jurisdiction of the

CFTC, CFE, and Cboe Digital Exchange are subject to routine rule enforcement reviews and examinations by the CFTC. As a derivatives clearing organization under the jurisdiction of the CFTC, Cboe Clear Digital is also subject to routine examinations by the CFTC. Cboe Clear Digital is also subject to routine audits and examinations by state regulators. Cboe SEF, LLC is a swap execution facility registered with the CFTC and subject to routine rule enforcement reviews and examinations by the CFTC. Cboe Trading and BIDS Trading are subject to reviews and inspections by FINRA. The Company has from time to time received inquiries and investigative requests from the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations and the CFTC’s Division of Market Oversight as well as the SEC Division of Enforcement and CFTC Division of Enforcement seeking information about the Company’s compliance with its obligations as a self-regulatory organization under the federal securities laws and Commodity Exchange Act as well as members’ compliance with the federal securities laws and Commodity Exchange Act.

In addition, while Cboe Europe, Cboe Chi-X Europe, EuroCCP, Cboe NL, Cboe Australia, Cboe Japan, MATCHNow, and NEO have not been the subject of any material litigation or regulatory investigation in the past, there is always the possibility of such action in the future. As Cboe Europe and Cboe Chi-X Europe are domiciled in the UK, it is likely that any action would be taken in the UK courts in relation to litigation or by the FCA in relation to any regulatory enforcement action. As EuroCCP is domiciled in the Netherlands, it is likely that any action would be taken in the Dutch courts in relation to litigation or by the DNB or Dutch Authority for Financial Markets in relation to any regulatory enforcement action. For Cboe NL, also domiciled in the Netherlands, it is likely that any actions would be taken in the Dutch courts in relation to litigation or Dutch Authority for Financial Markets in relation to any regulatory enforcement action. As Cboe Australia is domiciled in Australia, it is likely that any action would be taken in the Australian courts in relation to litigation or by the ASIC, in relation to any regulatory enforcement action. As Cboe Japan is domiciled in Japan, it is likely that any action would be taken in the Japanese courts in relation to litigation or by the JFSA or the JSDA in relation to any regulatory enforcement action. As MATCHNow and NEO are domiciled in Canada, it is likely that any action would be taken in the Canadian courts in relation to litigation or by the IIROC or OSC in relation to any regulatory enforcement action.

Cboe Digital has committed to securely store all crypto assets it holds on behalf of users. As such, Cboe Digital may be liable to its users for losses arising from theft or loss of user private keys. Cboe Digital has no reason to believe it will incur any expense associated with such potential liability because (i) it has no known or historical experience of claims to use as a basis of measurement, (ii) it accounts for and continually verifies the amount of crypto assets within its control, and (iii) it has established security around custodial private keys to minimize the risk of theft or loss. There were no loss events impacting safeguarded assets caused by the theft or loss of digital asset user private keys as of September 30, 2022. Since the risk of loss is remote, the Company had not recorded a liability at September 30, 2022.

The Company is also currently a party to various other legal proceedings in addition to those already mentioned. Management does not believe that the likely outcome of any of these other reviews, inspections, investigations or other legal proceedings is expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources.

See also Note 6 (“Credit Losses”) for information on promissory notes related to the CAT.