Commitments and Contingencies | Note 14—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 In connection with recent legal proceedings related to the ongoing DST ERISA matters described below, including the arbitration awards, we have recorded an accrued liability of $ 51.5 million. Of this amount, $ 8.1 million and $ 43.4 million were recorded in 2022 and 2021, respectively, to Other income (expense), net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income. Due to the inherent uncertainties associated with the resolution of these matters, the ultimate resolution of and any additional potential exposure related to these matters are uncertain at this time . On September 1, 2017, a putative representative action was filed on behalf of the DST 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (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”), alleging breach of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). The DST Defendants answered the operative 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 and asserted crossclaims for contribution and/or indemnification against DST. On March 8, 2021, the Court entered an order denying without prejudice the plaintiffs’ (the “Ferguson Plaintiffs”) then-pending motions for leave to file a third amended complaint and for class certification, ordering that the parties address the effect, if any, on the Ferguson 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. The Ferguson Plaintiffs renewed their motions for leave to file a third amended complaint and for class certification. 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 Plaintiffs and Mendon Plaintiffs, each 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, which the Ferguson Plaintiffs and the DST Defendants opposed. The Second Circuit denied the Rule 23(f) petitions on May 24, 2022 and May 25, 2022, respectively. On February 4, 2022, the Ferguson Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which included the class allegations. On March 7, 2022, the DST Defendants and Ruane each filed answers to the Ferguson Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint and reasserted their respective cross-claims. On August 23, 2021, the DST Defendants moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against other proceedings, including the below-described arbitrations, which arise out of or relate to the allegations in Ferguson. Following briefing, on November 18, 2021, the Court granted the DST Defendants’ motion and entered a preliminary injunction enjoining the Ferguson class members, including Arbitration Claimants, from instituting new actions or litigating in arbitration or other proceedings against the DST Defendants matters arising out of or relating to the facts or transactions alleged in the Ferguson amended complaint. On November 18, 2021, the Court also ordered the DST Defendants and Arbitration Claimants to submit briefing regarding how the arbitration awards that have been entered against the DST Defendants should be handled in light of the Court’s class certification order and preliminary injunction. On December 15, 2021, Arbitration Claimants and the Canfield Plaintiffs and Mendon Plaintiffs filed appeals of the Court’s preliminary injunction. On December 23, 2021, the DST Defendants, Arbitration Claimants, and the Ferguson Plaintiffs submitted briefs concerning the treatment of the arbitration awards that have been entered against the DST Defendants, and further briefing by the DST Defendants and Arbitration Claimants was submitted on January 26, 2022. On December 31, 2021, Arbitration Claimants moved by order to show cause for an immediate stay of the preliminary injunction pending their appeal to the Second Circuit. On January 3, 2022, the Court denied Arbitration Claimants’ motion for an immediate stay and ordered the DST Defendants to show cause as to why the Court should not issue a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal. On February 3, 2022, the Court denied Arbitration Claimants’ motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. In the same order, the Court held that it would determine the status of the arbitration awards already entered against DST at final judgment in the Ferguson action, either after trial or after settlement. On February 4, 2022, Arbitration Claimants filed a motion in the Second Circuit to stay the preliminary injunction pending their appeal of the Court’s preliminary injunction. On June 7, 2022, the Second Circuit denied Arbitration Claimants’ motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. On February 8, 2022, Arbitration Claimants and the Canfield Plaintiffs and Mendon Plaintiffs noticed an appeal of the Court’s February 3, 2022 order. The February 8, 2022 appeal was consolidated with the December 15, 2021 appeal of the preliminary injunction. On May 17, 2022, Arbitration Claimants and the Canfield Plaintiffs and Mendon Plaintiffs filed their opening brief in the consolidated appeals. The DST Defendants filed their answering brief on September 15, 2022, and the reply was filed on October 20, 2022. On April 20, 2023, the Second Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal. This appeal remains pending. On July 10, 2020, the Ferguson Plaintiffs and the DST Defendants reached an agreement in principle to settle the 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 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 the Ferguson Plaintiffs and Ruane also had reached a settlement in principle, subject to Court approval. The Ferguson 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 the Ferguson Plaintiffs with the Court on the same date. On January 12, 2021, the Ferguson Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlement with the DST Defendants, as well as preliminary approval of a separate settlement reached between the Ferguson Plaintiffs and Ruane. Arbitration Claimants 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 August 17, 2021, the Court denied the Ferguson Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on the terms proposed . On November 10, 2022, the Ferguson parties filed a notice of settlement and joint motion to stay the proceedings. The notice informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle to settle the class claims (as discussed above, the class excludes certain plan fiduciaries), and the joint motion requested a stay while the parties sought to finalize their agreement and prepare an application for Court approval of the contemplated settlement. On November 18, 2022, the Court entered an order staying the Ferguson action for 30 days. On December 19, 2022, the Ferguson parties filed a joint motion to stay the proceedings for an additional 30 days, which the Court granted on January 9, 2023, staying the proceedings until February 8, 2023. On February 8, 2023, the Ferguson parties filed a joint motion to stay the proceedings for an additional 45 days, which the Court granted on February 21, 2023, staying the proceedings until April 7, 2023. On April 5, 2023, Arbitration Claimants filed a motion to decertify the Rule 23(b)(1) class previously certified by the Court, or, in the alternative, to amend the class definition to remove Arbitration Claimants or permit them to opt out of the class. On April 7, 2023, the Ferguson parties filed a joint status report informing the Court that they had been working diligently with the DOL to finalize all necessary papers to document the settlement reached to resolve the Ferguson matter together with other related matters, and that the parties anticipated filing a final executed settlement agreement and supporting exhibits by April 14, 2023. On April 14, 2023, the DST Defendants informed the Court that, in response to a request from Arbitration Claimants, the Western District of Missouri had entered an injunction, as discussed below, enjoining DST from entering into or effectuating an agreement that settles, disposes of, interferes with, invalidates, satisfies, sets aside, alters, or otherwise compromises any of 55 judgments confirming arbitration awards entered by the Western District of Missouri on March 31, 2023. Following a status conference with the Court on April 24, 2023, the Court directed the parties to confer regarding settlement, and to submit a joint status report by May 3, 2023. The Court also held in abeyance the deadline to respond to Arbitration Claimants’ pending motion to decertify the class. 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, the DST Defendants, 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 July 10, 2020, the Court entered an order granting the DST Defendants’ motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel in the Canfield and Mendon actions. On March 17, 2021, the Court issued an opinion and order denying the DST Defendants’ motion to disqualify counsel from the arbitrations described below. On April 12, 2021, the Canfield Plaintiffs and Mendon Plaintiffs filed notices of voluntary dismissal dismissing their claims against Ruane with prejudice, which were 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. On November 19, 2021, the Court dismissed the Canfield and Mendon actions. On December 17, 2021, the Canfield Plaintiffs and Mendon Plaintiffs appealed the Court’s November 19, 2021 orders dismissing their respective actions to the Second Circuit. On May 17, 2022, the Canfield Plaintiffs and Mendon Plaintiffs filed their opening briefs in those appeals. The DST Defendants filed their answering briefs on September 15, 2022. The Canfield Plaintiffs and Mendon Plaintiffs filed their reply briefs on October 20, 2022. On April 20, 2023, the Second Circuit heard oral argument on the appeals. These appeals 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, and alleging that the DST 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 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. On March 28, 2022, the court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss, and Martin J. Walsh was substituted for Eugene Scalia as the plaintiff. On April 11, 2022, the DST Defendants answered the DOL’s complaint. 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 to date, 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. On November 24, 2021, in light of the preliminary injunction entered in Ferguson discussed above, the American Arbitration Association ceased administration of the arbitrations brought by members of the Ferguson class, which includes all of the Arbitration Claimants with the exception of certain former Plan fiduciaries. As of November 24, 2021, 557 demands for arbitration had been submitted to the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”). As of the date on which the preliminary injunction was entered, those individual arbitrations were at various stages depending on the particular proceeding. Certain of those arbitrations had resulted in awards against DST and others had resulted in decisions finding no liability as against DST. Many of those decisions were subject to further appeal within the AAA. Certain of the arbitration proceedings had been resolved in whole or in part by settlement. Since November 24, 2021, the AAA has administered only those arbitration proceedings associated with claimants who are not members of the Ferguson class, certain of which have resulted in awards against DST. Between August 20, 2021 and November 17, 2021, counsel for Arbitration Claimants filed 177 motions to confirm certain of the arbitration awards. DST filed responses to those motions. Between October 4 and December 22, 2021, the Western District of Missouri issued orders confirming those 177 arbitration awards and entering judgments against DST. DST appealed those judgments to the Eighth Circuit. On November 20, 2021, DST requested that the Eighth Circuit stay the pending appeals in light of the preliminary injunction entered in Ferguson. On December 3, 2021, the Eighth Circuit ordered the parties to brief DST’s stay request, and on January 3, 2022, the Eighth Circuit declined to stay the briefing schedule on the pending appeals and consolidated those appeals. DST filed its opening brief in the Eighth Circuit on March 24, 2022. Arbitration Claimants filed their opposition brief on April 26, 2022, and DST filed its reply brief on May 18, 2022. The Eighth Circuit heard oral argument on June 14, 2022. On November 28, 2022, the Eighth Circuit vacated the judgments confirming the 177 arbitration awards and remanded those actions to the Western District of Missouri to determine whether the district court has subject-matter jurisdiction and whether the district court should transfer the cases to the Southern District of New York. On December 14, 2022, the parties submitted simultaneous briefing to the Western District of Missouri regarding transfer. On March 31, 2023, the Western District of Missouri issued an order finding that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over 55 of the 177 confirmation actions, and confirmed the 55 arbitration awards in those actions and entered judgments against DST. The court dismissed the other 122 on the ground that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court further denied DST’s motion to transfer any of the 177 confirmation actions to the Southern District of New York. On April 28, 2023, DST appealed these judgments to the Eighth Circuit. These appeals remain pending. On April 10, 2023, Arbitration Claimants filed in the Western District of Missouri an emergency motion seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting DST from settling or attempting to settle in the Ferguson action any of the 55 Western District of Missouri judgments confirming arbitration awards, without the consent of those Arbitration Claimants and their attorneys. On April 10, 2023, the Western District of Missouri entered a preliminary injunction stating that “[i]n each of the 55 cases in which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction and entered an order on March 31, 2023 confirming an arbitration award, the Court hereby enjoins DST or anyone on behalf of DST from entering into or effectuating an agreement that settles, disposes of, interferes with, invalidates, satisfies, sets aside, alters, or otherwise compromises each such judgment, without the express written consent of each Confirmation Plaintiff in whose favor judgment was entered by this Court.” On April 12, 2023, DST appealed the preliminary injunction to the Eighth Circuit. This appeal remains pending. On April 27, 2023, DST filed a motion in the Western District of Missouri seeking a stay of its preliminary injunction pending appeal. We continue to vigorously defend these matters. On November 11, 2020, DST, the Compensation Committee of DST’s Board of Directors, and the Advisory Committee of the Plan as 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 and claims for actual and constructive fraudulent conveyances. On May 24, 2021, Defendant Robert Goldfarb filed an answer to the complaint. On December 17, 2021, the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss the DST plaintiffs’ complaint. On July 27, 2022, the Court denied without prejudice the pending motion to dismiss, and ordered the parties to submit by October 3, 2022 a joint status report with a new briefing schedule on the motion. On October 3, 2022, the parties filed a joint status report with a new briefing schedule on the motion, which the court approved on October 4, 2022. On December 16, 2022, and January 13, 2023, the parties filed joint motions to stay the proceedings, which were granted on January 31, 2023, staying proceedings until February 8, 2023. On February 8, 2023, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the proceedings for an additional 45 days. On April 7, 2023, the parties submitted a joint letter motion requesting a stay through April 14, 2023. On April 14, 2023, the parties requested that the Court enter a further stay in the matter through May 3, 2023. This request remains pending . |