Commitments and Contingencies |
6 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Jun. 30, 2016 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies
Litigation and Regulatory Matters
In December 2014 and January 2015, two purported class action suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against American Realty Capital Partners, Inc. (“ARCP”), certain affiliated entities and individuals, ARCP’s auditing firm, and the underwriters of ARCP’s May 2014 $1,656,000 common stock offering (“May 2014 Offering”) and three prior note offerings. The complaints have been consolidated. Ladenburg was named as a defendant as one of 17 underwriters of the May 2014 Offering and as one of eight underwriters of ARCP’s July 2013 offering of $300,000 in convertible notes. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the offering materials were misleading based on financial reporting of expenses, improperly-calculated AFFO (adjusted funds from operations), and false and misleading Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, including statements as to ARCP’s internal controls, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other relief. In June 2016, the court denied the underwriters’ motions to dismiss the complaint. The Company believes the claims against Ladenburg are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.
In November 2015, two purported class action complaints were filed in state court in Tennessee against officers and directors of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. (“Miller”), as well as Miller’s auditors and nine firms that underwrote six securities offerings in 2013 and 2014, and raised approximately $151,000. Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of two of the offerings. The complaints allege, among other things, that the offering materials were misleading based on the purportedly overstated valuation of certain assets, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other relief. In December 2015 the defendants removed the complaints to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee; in January 2016, the plaintiffs filed motions to remand, which are currently pending. The Company believes the claims against Ladenburg are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.
In January 2016, an amended complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. and related entities as well as their officers and directors. The amended complaint added Ladenburg and other underwriters of securities offerings in 2013 and 2014 that in the aggregate raised approximately $2,900,000 as defendants to the purported class action. Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of the October 2013 initial public offering. The complaints allege, among other things, that the offering materials were misleading based on representations concerning the maintenance and integrity of the issuer’s pipelines, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other relief. Motions to dismiss are currently pending. The Company believes the claims against Ladenburg are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.
In September 2015, a client of a former Triad registered representative filed an arbitration claim concerning the suitability of investments in tenant-in-common interests purchased through Section 1031 tax-deferred exchanges, and seeking compensatory damages totaling $3,714 and other relief. In April 2016, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving the claims; the amount paid by Triad in connection with the settlement was not material.
During the period from March 2015 to February 2016, eight arbitration claims and one lawsuit (U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama) were filed against Triad and others by a total of 45 individuals concerning purported misrepresentations and unsuitability of trading in their advisory accounts. All or most of the transactions at issue were effected through an investment advisory firm not affiliated with Triad or the Company. The lawsuit was transferred to arbitration. Seven arbitration claims were settled during the period from February to June 2016 and the amounts paid by Triad in connection with those settlements were not material. The remaining two arbitration claims concern three individuals and seek an aggregate amount of $466 in compensatory damages and other relief. The Company believes the remaining claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.
In September 2015, Securities America was named as a defendant in lawsuits brought by the bankruptcy trustee of a broker-dealer (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota) and a putative class action by the shareholders of that broker-dealer (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota). The lawsuits allege that certain of the debtor broker-dealer’s assets were transferred to Securities America in June 2015 for inadequate consideration. The complaints seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, and other relief. 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 has complied with the requests. In March 2016, Securities America received a notice from one such state concerning sales of non-traded REIT securities to its residents. The Company does not believe that any action is warranted in connection with such state notice and believes that no material outcome would result if an action were commenced.
During the period from May to July 2016, four arbitration claims were filed against Ladenburg by former customers concerning purported unauthorized trading, excessive trading and mishandling of their accounts by a former Ladenburg registered representative, and asserting compensatory damages in excess of $4,300. The Company believes the claims against Ladenburg 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, arbitration and regulatory 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 $437 at June 30, 2016 for certain pending matters, which are included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, the Company charged $662 and $1,339, respectively, to operations with respect to such matters. For other pending matters, the Company was unable to estimate a range of possible loss; 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.
Operating Leases
New lease activity subsequent to December 31, 2015 follows:
In connection with an office lease amendment effective February 1, 2016, a subsidiary is obligated under a non-cancelable lease agreement for office space for a period of 14 years under which the annual rental payments are $1,791 for 2016 and 2017, $1,954 for 2018 and increasing by 2% per year thereafter, for an aggregate commitment of $51,199.
In connection with a new office lease dated March 28, 2016, a subsidiary has an option to lease office space, which has not yet been constructed, for 12 years and, if exercised, would require the payment of an estimated average annual rent of $1,811, subject to certain adjustments. If the subsidiary does not exercise the option to lease the newly-built office space by May 31, 2017, it would be subject to certain financial penalties.
|