? ? Note 15  Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and contingencies may arise in the normal course of business. Refer to Note 6  Leases for information related to operating and financing lease commitments. As of June 30, 2019, there were no other material changes in the commitments and contingencies as reported in JHGs Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018. Litigation and Other Regulatory Matters JHG is periodically involved in various legal proceedings and other regulatory matters. Richard Pease v. Henderson Administration Limited ? The outcome of a court case involving an ex-employee was determined in the first quarter of 2018. The case related to the fees the Group should receive after a fund was transferred to an ex-employee (the Fund Transfer Fees) and the ex-employees entitlement to deferred and forfeited remuneration. The judgment given in the case resulted in the Group recognizing a $12.2 million charge in general, administrative and occupancy on JHGs Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income after the judge held that the ex-employee was not bound to pay the Fund Transfer Fees and that the ex-employees contract gave him an entitlement to deferred and forfeited remuneration. The amount also includes legal costs relating to the case. Henderson Administration Limited (HAL), a wholly owned subsidiary of JHG, appealed the part of the judgment relating to the Fund Transfer Fees and judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales on February 15, 2019, in favor of HAL. As a result, and subject to any further appeal, the Group was awarded the Fund Transfer Fees and related interest of approximately $5.0 million and $0.3 million, respectively. It will also be entitled to certain costs relating to the appeal and the earlier trial insofar as they relate to the Fund Transfer Fees claim. ? Eisenberg v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices, Halbert v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices, Qiu v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices and Y-GAR Capital v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices, and Rubinstein v. Credit Suisse Group AG and Janus Indices ? On March 15, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) against Janus Index &amp; Calculation Services LLC, which effective January 1, 2019, was renamed Janus Henderson Indices LLC (Janus Indices), a subsidiary of the Group, on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short-Term ETN (Ticker: XIV) between January 29, 2018, and February 5, 2018 ( Eisenberg v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices ). Credit Suisse, the issuer of the XIV notes, is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs generally allege statements by Credit Suisse and Janus Indices, including those in the registration statement, were materially false and misleading based on its discussion of how the intraday indicative value (IIV) is calculated and that the IIV was not an accurate gauge of the economic value of the notes. On April 17, 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against Janus Indices and Credit Suisse in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Alabama by certain investors in XIV ( Halbert v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices ). On May 4, 2018, a third lawsuit, styled as a class action on behalf of investors who purchased XIV between January 29, 2018, and February 5, 2018, was filed against Janus Indices and Credit Suisse AG in the SDNY ( Qiu v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices ). The Halbert and Qiu allegations generally copy the allegations in the Eisenberg case. On August 20, 2018, an amended complaint was filed in the Eisenberg and Qiu cases (which have been consolidated in the SDNY under the name Set Capital LLC, et al. v. Credit Suisse AG, et al. ), adding Janus Distributors LLC, doing business as Janus Henderson Distributors, and Janus Henderson Group plc as parties, and adding allegations of market manipulation by all of the defendants. ? On February 7, 2019, a fourth lawsuit was filed against Janus Indices, Janus Distributors LLC, Janus Henderson Group plc, and Credit Suisse in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) by certain investors in XIV ( Y-GAR Capital LLC v. Credit Suisse Group AG, et al.) The allegations in Y-GAR generally assert that the disclosures relating to XIV were false and misleading. On March 29, 2019, the plaintiff withdrew the suit from the EDNY and re-filed it in the SDNY. ? ? On February 4, 2019, a fifth lawsuit was filed against Janus Index, Janus Distributors LLC, Janus Henderson Group plc and various Credit Suisse persons in the SDNY ( Rubinstein v. Credit Suisse Group AG, et al.) . The Janus Henderson defendants were served with the complaint on April 1, 2019. The suit is styled as a class action and involves VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Medium-Term ETN (Ticker: ZIV), but otherwise generally copies the allegations in the XIV cases described above. ? The Group believes the claims in these exchange-traded note lawsuits are without merit and is strongly defending the actions. As of June 30, 2019, the Group cannot reasonably estimate possible losses from the claims in the exchange-traded note lawsuits. ?