Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Many aspects of the Company's business involve substantial risks of liability. In the normal course of business, the Company has been the subject of customer complaints and has been named as a defendant or co-defendant in various lawsuits or arbitrations creating substantial exposure. The Company is also involved from time to time in certain governmental and self-regulatory agency investigations and proceedings. These proceedings arise primarily from securities brokerage, asset management and investment banking activities. Regulatory investigations in the financial services industry may include investigations by multiple regulators of matters involving the same or similar underlying facts and seek substantial penalties, fines or other monetary relief.
While the ultimate resolution of routine pending litigation, regulatory and other matters cannot be currently determined, in the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel, the Company does not believe that the resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated balance sheet and statement of cash flows. However, the Company's results of operations could be materially affected during any period if liabilities in that period differ from prior estimates.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, multiple adverse results in arbitrations, litigations or regulatory proceedings currently filed or to be filed against the Company, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and financial condition, including its cash position.
The materiality of legal and regulatory matters to the Company's future operating results depends on the level of future results of operations as well as the timing and ultimate outcome of such legal and regulatory matters. See "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Factors Affecting 'Forward-Looking Statements'" in Part I, Item 2.
In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company establishes reserves for litigation and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable. When loss contingencies are not both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company does not establish reserves. In some of the matters described below, loss contingencies are not probable and reasonably estimable in the view of management and, accordingly, the Company has not established reserves for those matters. For legal or regulatory proceedings where there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss or an additional loss may be incurred, the Company estimates a range of aggregate loss in excess of amounts accrued of up to $40 million. This estimated aggregate range is based upon currently available information for those legal proceedings in which the Company is involved, where an estimate for such losses can be made. For certain cases, the Company does not believe that it can make an estimate. The foregoing estimate is based on various factors, including the varying stages of the proceedings (including the fact that some are currently in preliminary stages), the numerous yet-unresolved issues in many of the proceedings and the attendant uncertainty of the various potential outcomes of such proceedings. Accordingly, the Company's estimate will change from time to time, and actual losses may be materially more than the current estimate.
Beginning on or about August 31, 2021, Oppenheimer has been named as a respondent in thirty-seven arbitrations, many containing multiple claimants, each filed before FINRA, relating to those claimants’ purported investment in Horizon Private Equity, III, LLC (“Horizon”). Horizon is alleged to be a fraudulent scheme involving, among others, a former Oppenheimer
32
Table of Contents
employee John Woods. John Woods left Oppenheimer’s employ in 2016 and Oppenheimer never received a complaint or question from any of the investors prior to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) bringing a complaint against Woods and his co-conspirators in 2021. Each investor signed a document acknowledging that Horizon was not an approved Oppenheimer product. Over a protracted period of time, Woods made multiple false statements to Oppenheimer, to regulators and to a state court. The claimants are seeking damages based on a number of legal theories, including, without limitation, violations of various state and federal statutes, breach of fiduciary duty, procurement of breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting fraud, and unjust enrichment. Claimants do not allege Oppenheimer received any of the funds invested in Horizon, but rather that Oppenheimer’s purported failure to properly supervise its employees allowed the alleged scheme to occur and continue. The twenty-six arbitrations still pending claim specific monetary damages allege losses of approximately $36.4 million in the aggregate while a few others claim unspecified damages. Oppenheimer believes these claims to be without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously against these claims.
As previously reported Oppenheimer’s motion to vacate the arbitration award in Donald Robinson, Timothy and Sharon Padden, Rhett Rainey, Kelly A. Rainey Trust, Toucan Holdings LP, Robert Goodman, Robert Daniel Burgner, Individually and as Trustee of the Burgner Family Charitable Remainder Trust, Douglas Kasemeier, Wesley Callaway, and Billy Loveless v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. (the “Robinson Arbitration”) was denied on January 30, 2023. Oppenheimer has settled, or settled in principle, eleven of the Horizon related arbitrations, including the Robinson Arbitration,with approximately forty-one individual complainants. The aggregate settlement payments for those eleven arbitrations total approximately $48.6 million.
On June 30, 2022, the Company received a "Wells Notice" from the SEC requesting that Oppenheimer make a written submission to the SEC to explain why Oppenheimer should not be charged with violations of Section 15c2-12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 15c2-12 thereunder as well as Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Rules G-17 and G-27 in relation to its sales of municipal notes pursuant to an exemption from continuing disclosure contained in Rule 15c2-12. On September 13, 2022, the SEC filed a complaint against Oppenheimer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) alleging that Oppenheimer violated Section 15B(c)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule15c2-12 thereunder as well as Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Rules G-17 and G-27 for not having fully complied with the exemption from the continuing disclosure obligations under Rule 15c2-12. The SEC asked the Court to enter an order enjoining Oppenheimer from violating the above referenced rules and requiring it to disgorge approximately $1.9 million plus interest. The Company believes such claim to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against such claim.
Item 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not applicable.
33
Table of Contents
PART II