| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, in the ordinary course of our business, we are involved in various legal, regulatory or administrative proceedings, lawsuits, government investigations, and other claims, including employment, commercial, intellectual property, and environmental, safety, and health matters. In addition, we may receive routine requests for information from governmental agencies in connection with their regulatory or investigatory authority or from private third parties pursuant to valid court orders or subpoenas. We review such proceedings, lawsuits, investigations, claims, and requests for information and take appropriate action as necessary. At the present time, we can give no assurance as to the outcome of any such pending proceedings, lawsuits, investigations, claims, or requests for information and we are unable to determine the ultimate resolution of or provide a reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss attributable to these matters or the effect they may have on us. However, other than the matters described below, we do not expect the outcome of such proceedings, lawsuits, claims, or requests for information to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. We have defended and will continue to vigorously defend ourselves in all matters. As of August 31, 2021, we have accrued approximately $11 million for all outstanding litigation contingencies. CDS Auction Antitrust Litigation . On June 30, 2021, a class action lawsuit captioned New Mexico State Investment Council v. Bank of America Corp., et al , 1:21-cv-00606 (D.N.M.), was filed against nine dealers, ISDA, Creditex, and IHS Markit, alleging a conspiracy to manipulate the final CDS auction price used to value CDS contracts following a credit event. The complaint alleges that the defendants adopted rules or practices to limit participation in the auctions, and that the defendants exchanged competitively sensitive information relating to CDS auctions in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the Commodities and Exchange Act, and state tort law. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of “all persons or entities who, during the period of June 1, 2005 through the present, settled a credit default swap … by reference to the ISDA credit default swap auction protocol or the auction process that became the ISDA credit default swap auction process.” Plaintiffs seek treble damages in an unspecified amount, restitution, attorney’s fees, pre- and post- judgment interest, injunctive relief, and other remedies. The deadline for IHS Markit to respond to the complaint has not yet occurred, and discovery has not yet begun. Synaps Loans LLC Litigation . On May 31, 2019, Symbiont.io, Inc. (“Symbiont”) filed a complaint against IHS Markit and various of its subsidiaries, including two Ipreo subsidiaries (“Ipreo”), in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The complaint alleged, among other things, that IHS Markit’s acquisition of Ipreo in August 2018 breached a non-compete provision in a joint venture agreement between Ipreo and Symbiont regarding a joint venture called Synaps Loans LLC (“Synaps”). On June 24, 2019, IHS Markit counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, that Symbiont breached the joint venture agreement by failing to develop Synaps’s technology as it was contractually obligated to do. A trial was held from December 7, 2020, to December 10, 2020. On August 13, 2021, the court issued an opinion, finding, among other things, that Ipreo had breached the joint venture agreement’s non-compete provision and awarding “equitable accounting” damages in the amount of approximately half of the profits that IHS Markit’s competing business allegedly generated as a result of the breach. On September 17, 2021, the court entered a partial final judgment, based upon which the final damages award payable to Symbiont is expected to be no greater than $78.9 million, exclusive of pre- and post-judgment interest. We currently intend to appeal the judgment. |
