Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 13—Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, we are subject to legal proceedings and claims. In our opinion, we are not involved in any litigation or proceedings that would have a material adverse effect on us or our business. Legal Proceedings A putative representative action suit was filed against DST, the Compensation Committee of DST’s Board of Directors, the Advisory Committee of DST Systems, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the “Plan”) and certain of DST’s present and/or former officers and directors, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). On September 1, 2017, a complaint was filed purportedly on behalf of the Plan in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Ferguson, et al v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc., et al. (“Ferguson”), naming as defendants DST, the Compensation Committee of DST’s Board of Directors, the Advisory Committee of the Plan and certain of DST’s present and/or former officers and directors (collectively the “DST Defendants”). On September 18, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a partial dismissal related to certain claims against the DST Defendants concerning the 401k portion of the Plan. On October 31, 2019, the DST Defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint and asserted crossclaims for contribution and/or indemnification against Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc. (“Ruane”). On January 9, 2020, Ruane filed an amended answer to the amended complaint asserting crossclaims for contribution and/or indemnification against DST. Both DST and Ruane have filed answers denying the crossclaims asserted against them. On April 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint as well as a motion to certify a class. The DST Defendants did not oppose those motions. The Court ordered supplemental briefing on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, which was completed on July 29, 2020. On March 8, 2021, the Court entered an order denying without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motions for leave to file a third amended complaint and for class certification, ordering that the parties address the effect, if any, on Plaintiffs’ motions of the March 4, 2021 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Court in Cooper v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc. Plaintiffs renewed their motions for leave to file a third amended complaint and for class certification on April 5, 2021. Those motions were fully briefed on May 10, 2021. On August 17, 2021, the Court entered an order certifying a mandatory non-opt-out class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) that includes all plan participants other than certain plan fiduciaries. Arbitration Claimants and the Canfield and Mendon Plaintiffs, as defined below, filed petitions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) with the Second Circuit on August 30, 2021, and August 31, 2021, respectively, seeking interlocutory review of the Ferguson class certification order. Plaintiffs and the DST Defendants filed oppositions to those Rule 23(f) petitions. The Rule 23(f) petitions remain pending. On August 23, 2021, DST moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction as against other proceedings, including the arbitrations, arising out of or relating to the allegations in Ferguson. On August 31, 2021, the Court denied DST’s motion for a temporary restraining order and ordered Arbitration Claimants to show cause as to why the Court should not issue a preliminary injunction. The show-cause order was fully briefed on October 12, 2021 and remains pending. On July 10, 2020, Plaintiffs and the DST Defendants reached an agreement in principle to settle the putative class claims for $27 million, subject to the occurrence of certain conditions, including: Court certification of a “non-opt-out” class in the case that includes as class members all participants of the Plan, Court approval of the settlement in accordance with applicable law (i.e., including finding there was adequacy of class representation, fairness, adequacy of relief and equal treatment of class members) and the satisfactory resolution of claims made by certain other litigants. On September 18, 2020, the Parties submitted a letter to the Court disclosing that Plaintiffs and Ruane also had reached a settlement in principle, subject to Court approval. Plaintiffs and the DST Defendants entered into a settlement agreement dated January 8, 2021 memorializing the terms of their proposed settlement, which was filed by Plaintiffs with the Court on the same date. On January 12, 2021, Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlement with the DST Defendants, as well as preliminary approval of a separate settlement reached between Plaintiffs and Ruane. The Arbitration Claimants, as defined below, and the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) objected to various aspects of those settlements in filings dated January 15, 2021, January 27, 2021, and February 5, 2021. On February 11, 2021, Plaintiffs and the DST Defendants filed responses in support of preliminary approval of the settlement. On August 17, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On September 28, 2018, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Robert Canfield, et al. v. SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc., et al., on behalf of five individual plaintiffs (the “Canfield Plaintiffs”). On November 5, 2018, a similar complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Mark Mendon, et al. v. SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc., et al., on behalf of two individual plaintiffs (the “Mendon Plaintiffs”). These complaints name as defendants SS&C, DST, the Advisory Committee of the Plan, the Compensation Committee of DST’s Board of Directors, and Ruane. The underlying claim in each complaint is the same as in the above-described Ferguson matter, with the exception that these actions purport to be brought as individual actions and not putative class actions. On February 18, 2020, the DST Defendants moved to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel in these actions and in nearly all of the arbitrations described below. Those motions were fully briefed on March 24, 2020. On July 6, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, in which they sought to dismiss claims against Ruane with prejudice. On July 10, 2020, the Court entered an order granting the DST Defendants’ motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel from the U.S. federal court cases (the “Cases”). On July 24, 2020, the parties filed memoranda of law addressing the Court’s authority to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel from the arbitrations described below, in addition to the Cases. On July 24, 2020, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the Court’s July 10, 2020 order disqualifying plaintiffs’ counsel in the Cases. On March 17, 2021, the Court issued an opinion and order denying the DST Defendants’ motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel from the arbitrations described below. On March 17, 2021, the Court also issued an opinion and order denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the July 10, 2020 order disqualifying plaintiffs’ counsel in the Cases. On April 8, 2021, the Court held a conference and directed the DST Defendants to file any motion to dismiss these actions by April 22, 2021. On April 12, 2021, plaintiffs filed a new notice of voluntary dismissal dismissing their claims against Ruane with prejudice, which was entered by the Court on April 13, 2021. On April 22, 2021, the DST Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Canfield and Mendon actions. Those motions were fully briefed on May 28, 2021 and remain pending. On October 8, 2019, a substantially similar action to the above-described Ferguson, Canfield, Mendon and below-described arbitration matters captioned Scalia v. Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc. was filed by the DOL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants DST, the Advisory Committee of the Plan, the Compensation Committee of DST’s Board of Directors and certain of DST’s former officers and directors (“DST DOL Defendants”), and alleging that the DST DOL Defendants breached fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA in connection with the Plan. The complaint also names as defendants Ruane and its former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Robert D. Goldfarb. In the complaint, the DOL seeks disgorgement, damages and any other appropriate injunctive or equitable relief. The DST DOL Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on December 4, 2020 on the ground that the DOL’s complaint is time-barred. Other defendants also filed motions to dismiss on the same and other grounds. Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on February 5, 2021. All defendants’ motions to dismiss remain pending. On June 25, 2020, a complaint was filed against DST in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, captioned Ostrander et al. v. DST Systems, Inc., on behalf of five individual plaintiffs. The underlying claim was the same as in the above-described Canfield and Mendon matters. DST removed the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on December 10, 2020. On December 28, 2020, DST moved to dismiss the case or, in the alternative, transfer it to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs opposed that motion on January 21, 2021. DST’s motion was fully briefed on February 4, 2021. On September 3, 2021, the Court granted DST’s motion to dismiss. DST, the Advisory Committee of the Plan, and the Compensation Committee of DST’s Board of Directors have been named in 579 substantially similar individual demands for arbitration through October 27, 2021, by former and current DST employees demanding arbitration under the DST Employee Arbitration Program and Agreement (the “Arbitration Claimants”). The underlying claim in each is the same as in the above-described Ferguson matter, with the exception that the arbitrations purport to be brought as individual actions and not putative class actions. As of October 27, 2021, 557 demands for arbitration have been submitted to the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”). The individual arbitrations are at various stages depending on the particular proceeding. Certain of the arbitrations have resulted in awards against DST and others have resulted in decisions finding no liability as against DST. Many of these decisions are subject to further appeal within the AAA. Certain of the arbitration proceedings have been resolved in whole or in part by settlement. On August 20, 2021, counsel for Arbitration Claimants began filing in the Western District of Missouri motions to confirm certain arbitration awards. Counsel for Arbitration Claimants have filed 154 motions to confirm between August 20, 2021 and October 27, 2021. DST has filed responses to 91 of those motions. Between October 4 and October 21, 2021, the Western District of Missouri issued orders confirming 70 of the arbitration awards and entering judgments against DST. Those judgments are subject to appeal to the Eighth Circuit. We continue to vigorously defend these matters. During the third quarter, in connection with the ongoing DST ERISA matters and associated legal proceedings, including the arbitration awards discussed above, we recorded an accrued liability and expense of $43.4 million to Other (expense) income, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income. Due to the inherent uncertainties associated with the resolution of this litigation, including the arbitration matters, the ultimate resolution of and any additional potential exposure related to these matters is uncertain at this time. On November 11, 2020, DST, the Compensation Committee of DST’s Board of Directors, and the Advisory Committee of the Plan (collectively the “DST Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Ruane, certain of its related entities, and certain of its current and former employees. The complaint asserts claims for contribution, indemnification, and breach of contract arising out of Ruane’s management of the Plan’s investments. The complaint also asserts claims for actual and constructive fraudulent conveyances. On May 24, 2021, Defendant Robert Goldfarb filed an answer to the complaint. On September 17, 2021, the remaining defendants filed a pre-motion letter requesting permission to file a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 22, 2021, the DST Plaintiffs responded to the remaining defendants’ pre-motion letter.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 13—Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, we are subject to legal proceedings and claims. In our opinion, we are not involved in any litigation or proceedings that would have a material adverse effect on us or our business.

Legal Proceedings

A putative representative action suit was filed against DST, the Compensation Committee of DST’s Board of Directors, the Advisory Committee of DST Systems, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the “Plan”) and certain of DST’s present and/or former officers and directors, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). On September 1, 2017, a complaint was filed purportedly on behalf of the Plan in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Ferguson, et al v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc., et al. (“Ferguson”), naming as defendants DST, the Compensation Committee of DST’s Board of Directors, the Advisory Committee of the Plan and certain of DST’s present and/or former officers and directors (collectively the “DST Defendants”). On September 18, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a partial dismissal related to certain claims against the DST Defendants concerning the 401k portion of the Plan. On October 31, 2019, the DST Defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint and asserted crossclaims for contribution and/or indemnification against Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc. (“Ruane”). On January 9, 2020, Ruane filed an amended answer to the amended complaint asserting crossclaims for contribution and/or indemnification against DST. Both DST and Ruane have filed answers denying the crossclaims asserted against them. On April 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint as well as a motion to certify a class. The DST Defendants did not oppose those motions. The Court ordered supplemental briefing on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, which was completed on July 29, 2020. On March 8, 2021, the Court entered an order denying without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motions for leave to file a third amended complaint and for class certification, ordering that the parties address the effect, if any, on Plaintiffs’ motions of the March 4, 2021 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Court in Cooper v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc. Plaintiffs renewed their motions for leave to file a third amended complaint and for class certification on April 5, 2021. Those motions were fully briefed on May 10, 2021. On August 17, 2021, the Court entered an order certifying a mandatory non-opt-out class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) that includes all plan participants other than certain plan fiduciaries. Arbitration Claimants and the Canfield and Mendon Plaintiffs, as defined below, filed petitions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) with the Second Circuit on August 30, 2021, and August 31, 2021, respectively, seeking interlocutory review of the Ferguson class certification order. Plaintiffs and the DST Defendants filed oppositions to those Rule 23(f) petitions. The Rule 23(f) petitions remain pending. On August 23, 2021, DST moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction as against other proceedings, including the arbitrations, arising out of or relating to the allegations in Ferguson. On August 31, 2021, the Court denied DST’s motion for a temporary restraining order and ordered Arbitration Claimants to show cause as to why the Court should not issue a preliminary injunction. The show-cause order was fully briefed on October 12, 2021 and remains pending.

On July 10, 2020, Plaintiffs and the DST Defendants reached an agreement in principle to settle the putative class claims for $27 million, subject to the occurrence of certain conditions, including: Court certification of a “non-opt-out” class in the case that includes as class members all participants of the Plan, Court approval of the settlement in accordance with applicable law (i.e., including finding there was adequacy of class representation, fairness, adequacy of relief and equal treatment of class members) and the satisfactory resolution of claims made by certain other litigants. On September 18, 2020, the Parties submitted a letter to the Court disclosing that Plaintiffs and Ruane also had reached a settlement in principle, subject to Court approval. Plaintiffs and the DST Defendants entered into a settlement agreement dated January 8, 2021 memorializing the terms of their proposed settlement, which was filed by Plaintiffs with the Court on the same date. On January 12, 2021, Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlement with the DST Defendants, as well as preliminary approval of a separate settlement reached between Plaintiffs and Ruane. The Arbitration Claimants, as defined below, and the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) objected to various aspects of those settlements in filings dated January 15, 2021, January 27, 2021, and February 5, 2021. On February 11, 2021, Plaintiffs and the DST Defendants filed responses in support of preliminary approval of the settlement. On August 17, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.

On September 28, 2018, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Robert Canfield, et al. v. SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc., et al., on behalf of five individual plaintiffs (the “Canfield Plaintiffs”). On November 5, 2018, a similar complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Mark Mendon, et al. v. SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc., et al., on behalf of two individual plaintiffs (the “Mendon Plaintiffs”). These complaints name as defendants SS&C, DST, the Advisory Committee of the Plan, the Compensation Committee of DST’s Board of Directors, and Ruane. The underlying claim in each complaint is the same as in the above-described Ferguson matter, with the exception that these actions purport to be brought as individual actions and not putative class actions. On February 18, 2020, the DST Defendants moved to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel in these actions and in nearly all of the arbitrations described below.

Those motions were fully briefed on March 24, 2020. On July 6, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, in which they sought to dismiss claims against Ruane with prejudice. On July 10, 2020, the Court entered an order granting the DST Defendants’ motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel from the U.S. federal court cases (the “Cases”). On July 24, 2020, the parties filed memoranda of law addressing the Court’s authority to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel from the arbitrations described below, in addition to the Cases. On July 24, 2020, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the Court’s July 10, 2020 order disqualifying plaintiffs’ counsel in the Cases. On March 17, 2021, the Court issued an opinion and order denying the DST Defendants’ motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel from the arbitrations described below. On March 17, 2021, the Court also issued an opinion and order denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the July 10, 2020 order disqualifying plaintiffs’ counsel in the Cases. On April 8, 2021, the Court held a conference and directed the DST Defendants to file any motion to dismiss these actions by April 22, 2021. On April 12, 2021, plaintiffs filed a new notice of voluntary dismissal dismissing their claims against Ruane with prejudice, which was entered by the Court on April 13, 2021. On April 22, 2021, the DST Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Canfield and Mendon actions. Those motions were fully briefed on May 28, 2021 and remain pending.

On October 8, 2019, a substantially similar action to the above-described Ferguson, Canfield, Mendon and below-described arbitration matters captioned Scalia v. Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc. was filed by the DOL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants DST, the Advisory Committee of the Plan, the Compensation Committee of DST’s Board of Directors and certain of DST’s former officers and directors (“DST DOL Defendants”), and alleging that the DST DOL Defendants breached fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA in connection with the Plan. The complaint also names as defendants Ruane and its former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Robert D. Goldfarb. In the complaint, the DOL seeks disgorgement, damages and any other appropriate injunctive or equitable relief. The DST DOL Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on December 4, 2020 on the ground that the DOL’s complaint is time-barred. Other defendants also filed motions to dismiss on the same and other grounds. Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on February 5, 2021. All defendants’ motions to dismiss remain pending.

On June 25, 2020, a complaint was filed against DST in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, captioned Ostrander et al. v. DST Systems, Inc., on behalf of five individual plaintiffs. The underlying claim was the same as in the above-described Canfield and Mendon matters. DST removed the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on December 10, 2020. On December 28, 2020, DST moved to dismiss the case or, in the alternative, transfer it to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs opposed that motion on January 21, 2021. DST’s motion was fully briefed on February 4, 2021. On September 3, 2021, the Court granted DST’s motion to dismiss.

DST, the Advisory Committee of the Plan, and the Compensation Committee of DST’s Board of Directors have been named in 579 substantially similar individual demands for arbitration through October 27, 2021, by former and current DST employees demanding arbitration under the DST Employee Arbitration Program and Agreement (the “Arbitration Claimants”). The underlying claim in each is the same as in the above-described Ferguson matter, with the exception that the arbitrations purport to be brought as individual actions and not putative class actions. As of October 27, 2021, 557 demands for arbitration have been submitted to the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”). The individual arbitrations are at various stages depending on the particular proceeding. Certain of the arbitrations have resulted in awards against DST and others have resulted in decisions finding no liability as against DST. Many of these decisions are subject to further appeal within the AAA. Certain of the arbitration proceedings have been resolved in whole or in part by settlement. On August 20, 2021, counsel for Arbitration Claimants began filing in the Western District of Missouri motions to confirm certain arbitration awards. Counsel for Arbitration Claimants have filed 154 motions to confirm between August 20, 2021 and October 27, 2021. DST has filed responses to 91 of those motions. Between October 4 and October 21, 2021, the Western District of Missouri issued orders confirming 70 of the arbitration awards and entering judgments against DST. Those judgments are subject to appeal to the Eighth Circuit.

We continue to vigorously defend these matters. During the third quarter, in connection with the ongoing DST ERISA matters and associated legal proceedings, including the arbitration awards discussed above, we recorded an accrued liability and expense of $43.4 million to Other (expense) income, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income. Due to the inherent uncertainties associated with the resolution of this litigation, including the arbitration matters, the ultimate resolution of and any additional potential exposure related to these matters is uncertain at this time.

On November 11, 2020, DST, the Compensation Committee of DST’s Board of Directors, and the Advisory Committee of the Plan (collectively the “DST Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Ruane, certain of its related entities, and certain of its current and former employees. The complaint asserts claims for contribution, indemnification, and breach of contract arising out of Ruane’s management of the Plan’s investments. The complaint also asserts claims for actual and constructive fraudulent conveyances. On May 24, 2021, Defendant Robert Goldfarb filed an answer to the complaint. On September 17, 2021, the remaining defendants filed a pre-motion letter requesting permission to file a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 22, 2021, the DST Plaintiffs responded to the remaining defendants’ pre-motion letter.