Percentage of broker quoted securities less than securities priced by PRD

  
because (in the view of the Second Circuit) the exchanges were not carrying out regulatory functions while operating their markets and engaging in the challenged conduct at issue, and that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded claims against the defendants under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The Second Circuit directed that, on remand, the district court should address and rule upon various other defenses raised by the exchanges in their motion to dismiss (which the district court did not address in its prior opinion and order). In 2019, the district court denied a new motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, and the exchanges filed answers to the complaint, denying the principal allegations of the plaintiffs, denying liability in the matter, and asserting various affirmative defenses. During 2021, the parties conducted discovery, relating largely to class certification issues; the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification; and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the basis of preclusion and lack of standing. The parties are awaiting decisions from the court. LIBOR LitigationIn 2019, three virtually identical purported class action complaints were filed in the Southern District against ICE and several of its subsidiaries, including ICE Benchmark Administration Limited, or IBA, collectively referred to as the ICE Defendants, as well as 18 multinational banks and various of their respective subsidiaries and affiliates, or the Panel Bank Defendants, by, respectively, Putnam Bank, a savings bank based in Putnam, Connecticut; two municipal pension funds affiliated with the City of Livonia, Michigan; and four retirement and benefit funds affiliated with the Hawaii Sheet Metal Workers Union. IBA is the administrator for various regulated benchmarks, including the ICE LIBOR benchmark that is calculated daily based upon the submissions from a reference panel (which includes the Panel Bank Defendants).The plaintiffs sought to litigate on behalf of a purported class of all U.S.-based persons or entities who transacted with a Panel Bank Defendant by receiving a payment on an interest rate indexed to a one-month or three-month USD LIBOR-benchmarked rate during the period from February 1, 2014 to the present. The plaintiffs alleged that the ICE Defendants and the Panel Bank Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to set the LIBOR benchmark at artificially low levels, with an alleged purpose and effect of depressing payments by the Panel Bank Defendants to members of the purported class.  Subsequent to the filing of the individual complaints, the various plaintiffs referenced above filed a consolidated amended complaint against the ICE Defendants and the Panel Bank Defendants. As with the individual complaints, the consolidated amended complaint asserted a claim for violations of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts and sought unspecified treble damages and other relief. The ICE Defendants and the Panel Bank Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.On March 26, 2020, the court issued a decision and order granting the ICE Defendants and the Panel Bank Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Among other things, the court found that the amended complaint “…is made up of almost entirely conclusory allegations and is essentially devoid of any evidence, direct or circumstantial, to support the conclusion that Defendants colluded with one another.” The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Second Circuit. While briefing of the appeal was ongoing, each of the named plaintiffs withdrew from the case. DYJ Holdings, LLC, a New Jersey-based holding company, was permitted, over the objection of the defendants, to intervene for the purpose of serving as named plaintiff and representative of the purported class. On November 29, 2021, the Second Circuit heard oral argument on the merits of the underlying appeal, and the parties are awaiting a decision.ICE Data Pricing & Reference Data MatterOur subsidiary ICE Data Pricing & Reference Data, LLC, or PRD, is a registered investment advisor in the business of, among other things, providing clients with evaluated pricing and other information for fixed-income securities. PRD formerly had a business practice of passing through third-party price quotes, or broker quotes, in certain fixed income securities as-is to its clients when PRD did not believe it had the capability to model an evaluated price for such securities. Broker quoted securities were less than 2% of the securities PRD priced. A list of securities that were broker quoted, as distinguished from evaluated, was made available to PRD’s clients every day. PRD first notified its clients on December 16, 2019 that it would cease providing broker quotes and did so as of October 1, 2020. On December 9, 2020, following an SEC investigation of PRD’s legacy business practices with respect to broker quotes, the SEC announced a settlement in which PRD, without admitting or denying the findings therein, agreed to pay an $8 million civil monetary penalty, together with certain non-monetary provisions. For further details about the settlement and underlying matter under investigation, please refer to Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, Pursuant to Sections 203(e) and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-20164 (In the Matter of ICE Data Pricing & Reference Data, LLC).Separately, PRD’s legacy business practices with respect to broker quotes received from a now-bankrupt entity named Live Well Financial, Inc., or Live Well, are relevant to potential civil claims against PRD. In August 2019, the SEC and the 132
