Our contractual cash obligations for our committed purchase obligations as of December 31, 2020 are as follows (in millions):

Year Ending December 31,
2021	$	105.9
2022		34.6
2023		14.2
2024		0.2
2025 and thereafter		0.1
Total	$	155.0

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.

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. Plaintiffs’ motions for leave to file a third amended complaint and motion to certify a class remain pending as of February 18, 2021.

On July 10, 2020, Plaintiffs and the DST Defendants disclosed 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. The objectors argue, among other things, that the proposed settlement should not be approved because they believe the settlement payment is inadequate in view of potential damages and the likelihood of success on the merits, that the certification of a “non-opt-out” class is impermissible, and that the Court cannot bar other litigants, including DOL, from pursuing related claims against DST. On February 11, 2021, Plaintiffs and the DST Defendants filed responses in support of preliminary approval of the settlement. Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary approval remain pending. Whether the settlement will be approved by the Court on the proposed terms or at all is uncertain, and there can be no assurance as to how the Court will rule. If a settlement by the DST Defendants concludes or becomes probable we would recognize a charge for the expected loss in the amount of the settlement. We would also expect to offset that loss in the amount of any remaining insurance covering such loss. If a settlement, including as described above, does not receive Court approval, we will continue to vigorously defend these matters. Due to the inherent uncertainties associated with the resolution of this litigation, including, in view of the objections, whether the proposed settlement receives Court approval on a preliminary or final basis, the ultimate resolution of and any potential exposure related to this matter is uncertain at this time.

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. 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. 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. The Court has not yet resolved that issue. On July

24, 2020, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the Court’s July 10, 2020 order disqualifying plaintiffs’ counsel in the Cases. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was fully briefed on August 14, 2020 and remains pending.

DST, the Advisory Committee of the Plan, and the Compensation Committee of DST’s Board of Directors have been named in 487 substantially similar individual demands for arbitration through February 18, 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 February 18, 2021, the parties have jointly submitted 468 of the demands for arbitration to the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”). The remaining demands for arbitration have not yet been submitted. 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 October 8, 2019, a substantially similar action to the above-described Ferguson, Canfield, Mendon and 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 is 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, and remains pending.

On November 11, 2020, DST, the Compensation Committee of DST’s Board of Directors, and the Advisory Committee of the Plan 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. The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to the complaint.

We continue to vigorously defend these matters. We have not yet determined the extent to which these matters will impact our financial position or results of operations.