13.  Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are obligated under several non-cancelable lease agreements for office space, expiring in various years through February 2018. Certain leases have provisions for escalation based on specified increases in costs incurred by the landlord. The Company is a sublessor to third parties for a portion of its office space as described below. The subleases expire at various dates through April 2016. Minimum lease payments (net of lease abatement and exclusive of escalation charges) and sublease rentals are as follows:

Deferred rent of $2,333 and $2,928 at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, represents lease incentives related to the value of landlord financed improvements together with the difference between rent payable calculated over the life of the leases on a straight-line basis (net of lease incentives), and rent payable on a cash basis.

Litigation and Regulatory Matters

In May 2003, a suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Sedona Corporation against Ladenburg, former employees of Ladenburg and a number of other firms and individuals. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that certain defendants (other than Ladenburg) purchased convertible securities from plaintiff and then allegedly manipulated the market to obtain an increased number of shares from the conversion of those securities. On July 9, 2009, plaintiff filed its Third Amended Complaint, which contained only common law claims; the plaintiff seeks compensatory damages from the defendants of at least $660,000 and punitive damages of $400,000. On September 15, 2011, Ladenburg’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint was granted in part and denied in part. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

In July 2004, a suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas by Pet Quarters, Inc. against Ladenburg, a former employee of Ladenburg and a number of other firms and individuals. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that certain defendants (not Ladenburg) purchased convertible securities from the plaintiff and then allegedly manipulated the market to obtain an increased number of shares from the conversion of those securities. Ladenburg acted as placement agent and not as principal in those transactions. On February 21, 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving all claims. The settlement amount payable by Ladenburg, which was not material, was accrued at December 31, 2011.

In July 2008, a suit was filed by BankAtlantic and BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. against Ladenburg and a former Ladenburg research analyst. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that research reports issued by defendants were false and defamatory, and that defendants were liable for defamation per se and negligence; the amount of the alleged damages was unspecified. In February 2010, the plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Ladenburg resolving all claims against Ladenburg. On July 1, 2010, the plaintiffs and the former research analyst dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice. In November 2010, the former research analyst commenced an arbitration claim against Ladenburg, the Company, and two Company directors for, among other things, indemnification and breach of contract, seeking reimbursement of expenses and other purported damages incurred in defending the suit. On March 3, 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving all claims. The settlement amount payable by the Company, which was not material, was accrued at December 31, 2011.

In January 2011, two former clients of Triad filed an arbitration claim concerning their U.S Internal Revenue Code Section 1031 like-kind exchange investments made in 2006. On January 9, 2012, the arbitration panel issued an order dismissing all claims.

In January 2011, two former clients of Triad filed an arbitration claim concerning variable annuities purchased in 2008. The customers have asserted claims for breach of contract, fraud, negligence, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, unsuitability, negligent supervision, and violations of state securities statutes, and they are seeking approximately $442 in compensatory damages. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

Eight arbitration claims and three lawsuits were filed against Triad by former clients asserting that a former registered representative of Triad sold them, not through Triad, guaranteed investments that were fraudulent. The clients have asserted, among other claims, claims for fraud, theft, conversion, securities law violations, failure to supervise, respondeat superior, and breach of fiduciary and other duties. Seven of the claims have been settled; amounts paid in connection with these settlements were not material. The remaining one arbitration claim and three lawsuits seek a total of $830 in compensatory damages, and other relief. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

In March 2011, a former client of Triad filed an arbitration claim concerning unit investment trusts and other investments purchased in the client’s account; the total investment amount was $12,000. The client has asserted claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, unsuitability, negligent supervision, and violations of state securities statutes, and is seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory damages. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

In August 2011, a former client of Investacorp filed an arbitration claim asserting that a former registered representative of Investacorp invested the client’s funds in an unsuitable variable annuity and engaged in risky options trading in the client’s account; further, the claim asserts that the former registered representative sold the client, not through Investacorp, investments in fraudulent alternative business ventures. The claimant seeks damages between $500 and $1,000. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

In October 2011, a suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by James Zazzali, as Trustee for the DBSI Private Actions Trust, against fifty firms, including BYA and Triad, and their purported parent corporations, alleging liability for purported fraud in the marketing and sale of DBSI securities. The plaintiff has alleged, among other things, that the defendants failed to conduct adequate due diligence and violated securities laws. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages as well as other relief. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

In December 2011, a purported class action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against FriendFinder Networks, Inc. (“FriendFinder”), various individuals, Ladenburg and another broker-dealer as underwriters for the May 11, 2011 FriendFinder initial public offering. The complaint alleges that the defendants, including Ladenburg, are liable for violations of federal securities laws. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

In December 2011, a purported class action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc. (“HQS”), various individuals, Ladenburg and another broker-dealer as underwriters of 2009 and 2010 offerings of HQS common stock. The complaint alleges that the defendants, including Ladenburg, are liable for violations of federal securities laws. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

During the fourth quarter of 2009, one of the Company’s broker-dealer subsidiaries had a short-term net-capital deficiency, discovered during a routine regulatory review, which was not disclosed properly on a monthly FOCUS report. Following investigation of the matter, the Company implemented corrective actions with respect to the net capital issue, as well as other issues that arose during the course of the investigation. These corrective actions included reporting the deficiency to governmental and self-regulatory organizations, filing amended FOCUS reports for historical periods, implementing new procedures to monitor net capital compliance, and terminating the employees who had primary responsibility for monitoring and reporting its net capital. The Company is unable to determine whether and to what extent any governmental and/or self-regulatory organizations may seek to discipline the subsidiary concerning this matter. Such disciplinary actions could include fines, a suspension of such subsidiary’s operations and/or rescission of revenues relating to the period of non-compliance, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the subsidiary’s results of operations and financial condition.

In July 2009, the SEC instituted actions against two issuers of private placement interests (Medical Capital Holding, Inc./Medical Capital Corporation and affiliated corporations and Provident Shale Royalties, LLC and affiliated corporations) sold by Securities America. This resulted in several lawsuits, regulatory inquiries, state administrative complaints and a significant number of FINRA arbitrations against Securities America and affiliated parties. These actions and arbitrations generally allege violations of state and/or federal securities laws in connection with Securities America’s sales of these private placement interests. Except for an administrative complaint filed by the state of Montana, substantially all of these actions were settled prior to the Company's acquisition of Securities America. On February 13, 2012, the state of New Hampshire commenced an action against Securities America and two financial advisors in connection with the sales of Medical Capital interests. Ameriprise has agreed to indemnify the Company for any loss related to all pending and future actions involving the sale of these interests.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company’s subsidiaries are defendants in litigation and arbitration proceedings and may be subject to unasserted claims or arbitrations primarily in connection with their activities as securities broker-dealers or as a result of services provided in connection with securities offerings. Such litigation and claims may involve substantial or indeterminate amounts and are in varying stages of legal proceedings. When the Company believes that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company includes an estimate of such amount in accounts payable and accrued liabilities.

Upon final resolution, amounts payable may differ materially from amounts accrued. The Company had accrued liabilities in the amount of approximately $650 at December 30, 2011 and $286 at December 31, 2010 for these matters. For other pending matters, the Company is unable to estimate a range of possible loss; however, in the opinion of management, after consultation with counsel, the ultimate resolution of these matters should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.