Maximum exposure, undiscounted

  
of credit following which ICE NGX would file a claim under the default insurance to recover additional losses up to $100 million beyond the $15 million first-loss amount that ICE NGX is responsible for under the default insurance policy.Clearing House ExposureThe net notional value of unsettled contracts was $3.0 trillion as of December 31, 2021. Each ICE Clearing House bears financial counterparty credit risk and provides a central counterparty guarantee, or performance guarantee, to its Members. To reduce their exposure, the ICE Clearing Houses have a risk management program with both initial and ongoing membership standards. Excluding the effects of original and variation margin, guaranty fund and collateral requirements and default insurance, the ICE Clearing Houses’ maximum estimated exposure for this guarantee is $218.9 billion as of December 31, 2021, which represents the maximum estimated value by the ICE Clearing Houses of a hypothetical one-day movement in pricing of the underlying unsettled contracts. This value was determined using proprietary risk management software that simulates gains and losses based on historical market prices, volatility and other factors present at that point in time for those particular unsettled contracts. Future actual market price volatility could result in the exposure being significantly different than this amount.We also performed calculations to determine the fair value of our counterparty performance guarantee taking into consideration factors such as daily settlement of contracts, margining and collateral requirements, other elements of our risk management program, historical evidence of default payments, and estimated probability of potential default payouts by the ICE Clearing Houses. Based on these analyses, the estimated counterparty performance guarantee liability was determined to be nominal and no liability was recorded as of December 31, 2021 or 2020. The ICE Clearing Houses have never experienced an incident of a clearing member default which has required the use of the guaranty funds of non-defaulting clearing members or the assets of the ICE Clearing Houses.  
15.Commitments and Contingencies  Leases We have lease agreements for office space, equipment facilities and certain computer equipment for varying periods that expire at various dates through 2029. All of our leases are classified as operating leases. For details of our lease assets, lease liabilities and rent expense see Note 2.Legal ProceedingsIn the ordinary course of our business, from time to time we are subject to legal proceedings, lawsuits, government investigations and other claims with respect to a variety of matters. In addition, we are subject to periodic reviews, inspections, examinations and investigations by regulators in the U.S. and other jurisdictions, any of which may result in claims, legal proceedings, assessments, fines, penalties, restrictions on our business or other sanctions. We record estimated expenses and reserves for legal or regulatory matters or other claims when these matters present loss contingencies that are probable and the related amount is reasonably estimable. Any such accruals may be adjusted as circumstances change. Assessments of losses are inherently subjective and involve unpredictable factors. While the outcome of legal and regulatory matters is inherently difficult to predict and/or the range of loss often cannot be reasonably estimable, we do not believe that the liabilities, if any, which may ultimately result from the resolution of the various legal and regulatory matters that arise in the ordinary course of our business, including the matters described below, are likely to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. It is possible, however, that future results of operations for any particular quarterly or annual period could be materially and adversely affected by any developments relating to these legal and regulatory matters. City of Providence LitigationIn 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., two of our subsidiaries, were among more than 40 financial institutions and U.S.-based equity exchanges named as defendants in four purported class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Southern District, by the City of Providence, Rhode Island, and other plaintiffs. In a subsequent consolidated amended complaint filed against only the exchange defendants (which include exchanges owned and operated by Nasdaq and Cboe), the plaintiffs asserted claims on behalf of a class of “all public investors” who bought or sold stock from April 18, 2009 to the present on the named exchanges. In 2015, the district court granted a motion to dismiss filed by the exchange defendants and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently state a claim under Sections 10(b) and 6(b) of the Exchange Act, and additionally that some of the claims were barred by the doctrine of self-regulatory organization immunity. The plaintiffs appealed, and in 2017 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, or the Second Circuit, issued a decision vacating the dismissal and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings. The Second Circuit held that the claims against the exchanges were not barred by the doctrine of self-regulatory organization immunity 131
