Commitments and Contingencies |
3 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Mar. 31, 2019 | |
| 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. In August 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
In November 2015, two purported class action complaints were filed in state court in Tennessee against Miller Energy Resources, Inc. (“Miller”), officers, directors, auditors and nine firms that underwrote six securities offerings in 2013 and 2014, which offerings 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 November 2016, the cases were consolidated. In August 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the underwriters' motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and to remand the case to state court are pending. Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
In January 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the 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 complaint 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. In April 2018, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice and entered final judgment for the defendants. In May 2018 the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal order. If the plaintiffs’ appeal is successful, Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
SEC examination reports provided to Triad and Securities America Advisors, Inc. in May and August 2016, respectively, asserted that the firms had acted inconsistently with their fiduciary duties (including the requirement to seek best execution) in recommending and selecting mutual fund share classes that paid 12b-1 fees where lower cost share classes also were available in those same funds. The SEC also asserted that the firms’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and compensation related to the mutual fund share classes that paid 12b-1 fees were insufficient. Triad has revised its disclosures and completed restitution to its affected clients in 2016.
On April 6, 2018, the SEC issued an order against Securities America Advisors on consent that includes a cease and desist order and imposes remedial sanctions of disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and a fine; the combined total amount is $5,828, which had previously been reserved. In October 2018, Securities America Advisors received approval of its plan for distribution of the funds. Securities America Advisors is distributing the funds pursuant to the terms of the order.
In February 2018, the SEC announced a Share Class Selection Disclosure Initiative (“Initiative”) to encourage registered investment advisory firms to self-report failures to disclose conflicts of interest to clients concerning the selection of mutual fund share classes that paid fees pursuant to Rule 12b-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the period 2014-2016. Under the Initiative, the SEC requires self-reporting firms, among other things, to disgorge to clients the 12b-1 fees received during the relevant period when lower-cost share classes were available. Three of the Company's investment advisory subsidiaries determined to self-report under the Initiative. On March 11, 2019, the SEC issued orders on consent against SSN Advisory, Inc. and Investacorp Advisory Services, Inc. that include cease and desist orders and impose remedial sanctions of disgorgement and prejudgment interest; the combined total amount is $2,149, which had previously been reserved. The matter was closed as to the third investment advisory subsidiary without formal action.
Two arbitration claims were filed against Securities America in June and September 2018, and one complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in February 2019, by a total of 14 customers asserting that a former registered representative of Securities America defrauded them through, among other things, the use of improper wire transfers and false account documents. The customers asserted, among other claims, claims for fraud, negligence, §10(b) violations, failure to supervise, respondeat superior, breach of fiduciary and other duties. In November and December 2018, settlements were reached resolving the two arbitration claims; the amounts paid in connection with those two claims were not material. Securities America is seeking to resolve the complaint, which asserts a total of $18,000 in compensatory damages.
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.
The Company had accrued liabilities in the amount of approximately $3,968 at March 31, 2019 and $9,869 at December 31, 2018 for certain pending matters which are included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities. Amounts accrued are based on judgment and currently available information and involve a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the type and nature of the litigation, claim or proceeding, the progress of the matter, advice of counsel, available defenses, potential recoveries from other parties, experience in similar cases of proceedings, as well as assessment of matters, including settlements, involving other defendants in similar or related cases of proceedings. During the three months ended March 31, 2019 and March 31, 2018, the Company charged $1,031 and $2,572, 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.
|