|
Commitments and Contingencies
|
9 Months Ended |
|---|---|
|
Sep. 30, 2014
|
|
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies
Litigation and Regulatory Matters
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 50 firms, including two of the Company’s subsidiaries, and their purported parent corporations, alleging liability for purported fraud in the marketing and sale of DBSI securities. The plaintiff alleges, 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. On September 24, 2014, a Company subsidiary entered into a settlement agreement resolving all claims against it; the amount paid by such subsidiary in connection with the settlement was not material. Effective September 26, 2014, the case involving the remaining parties was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. The remaining Company subsidiary’s motion to dismiss the complaint is currently pending. 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 (“District Court”) against FriendFinder Networks, Inc. (“FriendFinder”), various individuals, and Ladenburg and another broker-dealer as underwriters for the May 11, 2011 FriendFinder initial public offering. On June 20, 2013, the plaintiff filed its second amended complaint, alleging that the defendants, including Ladenburg, were liable for violations of federal securities laws. On March 18, 2014, the District Court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice. On October 24, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the second amended complaint.
In December 2012, a purported class action suit was filed in the Superior Court of California for San Mateo County against Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing, Inc. (“WEMU”), certain individuals, and Ladenburg as placement agent for a 2010 offering of WEMU securities. The complaint alleged that the defendants, including Ladenburg, are liable for violations of state securities laws, and does not specify the amount of damages sought. On August 11, 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving all claims in the complaint, which is subject to court approval. The amount expected to be paid by Ladenburg in connection with the settlement was accrued at December 31, 2013.
In April 2013, a former client of Securities America filed an arbitration claim against Securities America concerning the suitability of investments in three tenant-in-common interests purchased through Section 1031 tax-deferred exchanges;
the claimant sought compensatory damages equal to the purported total investment loss of approximately $2,164 and other relief. On September 15, 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving all claims; the amount paid in connection with the settlement was not material.
During the period from June to November 2013, and in September 2014, seven former clients of Triad filed arbitration claims concerning the suitability of investments in tenant-in-common interests purchased through Section 1031 tax-deferred exchanges. In June and October 2014, two of the claimants entered into settlement agreements with Triad that resolved all of such claimants' claims; the amounts paid by Triad in connection with the settlements were not material. The five remaining claims, which seek purported investment losses totaling $6,051, and other relief, are currently pending. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.
Commencing in October 2013, certain states have requested that Securities America provide information concerning the suitability of purchases of non-traded REIT securities by their residents. Securities America is complying with the requests. The Company currently is unable to determine the scope of any potential liability or whether and to what extent any of the states may seek to discipline Securities America.
From April to September 2014, six arbitration claims were filed on behalf of 40 individuals against Securities America and another brokerage firm concerning purported unauthorized trading and unsuitability of investments made on their behalf by a registered representative. Securities America believes that all or virtually all of the transactions at issue occurred while the registered representative was affiliated with his prior brokerage firm. On October 17, 2014, the parties to one of the arbitration claims reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims on behalf of 29 individuals; the amount to be paid in connection with that settlement is not material. The 11 claimants in the remaining five arbitration claims are seeking reimbursement of investment losses that may exceed $3,000, and other relief. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.
In the ordinary course of business, in addition to the above disclosed matters, the Company's subsidiaries are defendants in other litigation and arbitration proceedings and may be subject to unasserted claims 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 (after giving effect to any expected insurance recovery), the Company accrues such amount. Upon final resolution, amounts payable may differ materially from amounts accrued. The Company had accrued liabilities in the amount of approximately $3,854 at September 30, 2014 and $3,291 at December 31, 2013 for certain pending matters. For other pending matters, the Company was unable to estimate a range of possible loss as of September 30, 2014 or December 31, 2013, as applicable; however, in the opinion of management, after consultation with counsel, the ultimate resolution of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
|