Item 3. Legal Proceedings
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
From time to time, we are subject to various claims, lawsuits and other legal proceedings, including reviews, investigations and proceedings by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding our business. Set forth below is a summary of our currently pending material legal proceedings. While the ultimate resolution of these matters cannot presently be determined, we do not believe that, taking into account any applicable insurance coverage, any of our pending legal proceedings, including the matters set forth below, could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. However, legal matters are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, some of which are beyond our control. As such, there can be no assurance that the final outcome of any of our pending or future legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations, including for any particular reporting period. In addition, regardless of the outcome, legal proceedings may have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, reputational loss and other factors.
We record our best estimate of a loss, including estimated defense costs, when the loss is considered probable and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. Based on our experience, we believe that the amount of damages claimed in a legal proceeding is not a meaningful indicator of the potential liability. At this time, we cannot reasonably predict the timing or outcomes of, or estimate the amount of loss, or range of loss, if any, related to, our pending legal proceedings, including the matters described below, and therefore we do not have any contingency reserves established for any of these matters.
Treasuries Matter
In December 2015, more than 40 substantially similar putative class action complaints filed by individual investors, pension funds, retirement funds, insurance companies, municipalities, hedge funds and banks were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re Treasuries Securities Auction Antitrust Litigation , No. 1:15-md-2673 (S.D.N.Y.) (PGG). In November 2017, the plaintiffs in these consolidated actions filed a consolidated amended complaint in which they allege (a) an “Auction Conspiracy” among primary dealers of United States Treasury securities in auctions for Treasury securities and in the “when-issued” and secondary markets for such securities and other derivative financial products; and (b) a “Boycott Conspiracy” among certain primary dealers and Tradeweb Markets LLC, Tradeweb IDB Markets, Inc. and Dealerweb Inc. (collectively, the “Tradeweb Parties”). The plaintiffs purport to represent two putative classes: an “Auction Class” consisting of all persons who purchased Treasuries in an auction, transacted in Treasuries with a dealer defendant or through an exchange from January 1, 2007 through June 8, 2015, and a “Boycott Class” consisting of all persons who transacted in Treasury securities in the secondary market with a dealer defendant from November 15, 2013 to the present.
The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Tradeweb Parties participated in the alleged “Boycott Conspiracy” through which certain primary dealers are alleged to have boycotted trading platforms permitting “all-to-all” trading of Treasury securities. The complaint asserts claims against the Tradeweb Parties under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and for unjust enrichment under state law and seeks to permanently enjoin the Tradeweb Parties and the dealer defendants from maintaining the alleged “Boycott Conspiracy” and an award of treble damages, costs and expenses.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss in February 2018, including a separate motion to dismiss filed by the Tradeweb Parties. The cases were dismissed in March 2021, with the Court granting the Plaintiffs leave to further amend the complaint by no later than May 14, 2021. The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on or about May 14, 2021, and the Company served its motion to dismiss the amended compliant on June 14, 2021. By order dated March 31, 2022, the Court granted the Company’s motion and dismissed all of the claims against it in the amended complaint. The Court also denied the Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a further amended complaint. On April 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the decision and filed their opening brief on the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on August 18, 2022. The Company filed its brief in response on November 17, 2022. Plaintiffs filed their brief in reply in further support of their appeal on December 14, 2022. Oral argument in the appeal was held on October 3, 2023, and by order and opinion issued on February 1, 2024, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order dismissing all claims against all defendants, including the claims against the Company.
65
Table of Contents
Interest Rate Swaps Matter
In November 2015, Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago, on behalf of itself and a putative class of other similar purchasers of interest rate swaps (“IRS”), filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Tradeweb Markets LLC, ICAP Capital Markets LLC and several investment banks and their affiliates (the “Dealer Defendants”), captioned Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago v. Bank of America Corporation , Case No. 15-cv-09219 (S.D.N.Y.). Additional plaintiffs, including Tera Group Inc. and Javelin Capital Markets LLC, filed lawsuits and, ultimately, the cases were consolidated under the caption In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation , No. 1:16-md-2704.
The plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to forestall the emergence of exchange style trading for IRS and seek treble damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under federal antitrust laws with respect to Tradeweb Markets LLC. Plaintiffs allege that Tradeweb agreed with the Dealer Defendants to shutter its plans to launch an exchange-like trading platform for IRS in furtherance of the conspiracy and provided a forum where the Dealer Defendants carried out their alleged collusion.
Tradeweb Markets LLC and certain other entities were dismissed from the lawsuit in July 2017, following the court’s order and opinion on defendants’ motions to dismiss. In May 2018, the court denied plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend their complaint to reinstate Tradeweb Markets LLC as a defendant, but granted leave to amend to include additional allegations. In October 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a proposed fourth amended complaint. They did not seek to name Tradeweb Markets LLC as a defendant but instead purported to reserve all rights with respect to Tradeweb Markets LLC. While Tradeweb Markets LLC is not a party to the litigation, it was actively engaged in third-party discovery and responded to the parties’ data and document requests. Additionally, in June 2018, the plaintiffs notified the court that they are likely to move for entry of judgment of the dismissed claims. We believe that we have meritorious defenses to any allegations asserted against us in this litigation and, if necessary, intend to vigorously defend our position.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES.
Not applicable.
66
Table of Contents
PART II