Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

17 . COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal and Regulatory Proceedings

One of the Company’s U.S. broker-dealer subsidiaries, CCS, is a party to litigation commenced on January 12, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Illinois Court”) under the caption Frederick J. Grede, not individually, but as Liquidation Trustee and Representative of the Estate of Sentinel Management Group, Inc. v. Delores E. Rodriguez, Barry C. Mohr, Jr., Jacques de Saint Phalle, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., and Cohen & Company Securities, LLC. The plaintiff in this case is the Liquidation Trustee (the “Liquidation Trustee”) for the Estate of Sentinel Management Group, Inc. (“Sentinel”), which filed a bankruptcy petition in August 2007. The Liquidation Trustee alleges that CCS sold Sentinel securities, mainly CDOs that the Liquidation Trustee contends were unsuitable for Sentinel and that CCS violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The Liquidation Trustee also seeks relief under the Illinois Blue Sky Law, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the United States Bankruptcy Code, and under common law theories of negligence and unjust enrichment. The relief sought by the Liquidation Trustee under these various legal theories includes damages, rescission, disgorgement, and recovery of allegedly voidable transactions under the Bankruptcy Code, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees. By order dated July 8, 2009, the Illinois Court dismissed the Liquidation Trustee’s Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim. Discovery is ongoing with respect to the remaining claims.

CCS is also party to litigation commenced on May 21, 2009 in the Illinois Court under the caption Frederick J. Grede, not individually, but as Liquidation Trustee of the Sentinel Liquidation Trust, Assignee of certain claims v. Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., Cohen & Company Securities, LLC., Delores E. Rodriguez, Barry C. Mohr, Jr., and Jacques de Saint Phalle. The plaintiff in this case is the Liquidation Trustee of the Sentinel Liquidation Trust, which emerged from the bankruptcy of Sentinel, filed in August 2007. The Liquidation Trustee, purportedly as the assignee of claims of Sentinel’s customers, alleges that, by recommending that Sentinel purchase securities, mainly CDOs, that the trustee deems to have been unsuitable for Sentinel’s customer accounts, CCS aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties purportedly owed by Sentinel and its head trader to Sentinel’s customers, in violation of Illinois common law. The complaint also alleges claims under common law theories of negligence and unjust enrichment. The relief sought by the Liquidation Trustee under these various legal theories includes damages, disgorgement, costs, and attorneys’ fees. CCS filed a motion to dismiss the Liquidation Trustee’s complaint on July 21, 2009; that motion was dismissed “as moot” on March 29, 2011.

During the second quarter of 2012, CCS and the Liquidation Trustee reached an agreement in principle to settle both of the above actions. That agreement calls for CCS to make an initial payment of $3,000 and an additional payment of $2,250 in the future. As of the date of this report, this agreement is not final, is subject to the execution of final documentation and is subject to the Illinois Court’s approval of an order barring contribution claims against CCS. As a result of this agreement in principle, the Company accrued a contingent liability of $4,357 representing the initial payment of $3,000, the discounted present value of the future payment of $1,978, partially offset by additional estimated insurance proceeds receivable of $621. This expense was included in the statement of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 as a component of non-operating income / (expense). The discount of $272 will be amortized as a component of interest expense over the period spanning the signing through the final payment date.

The Company has been named in litigation commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 29, 2012, under the caption U.S. Bank National Association v. Institutional Financial Markets, Inc. The plaintiff, U.S. Bank, alleges breach of contract respecting certain fees allegedly owing to U.S. Bank, as Trustee, in connection with the issuance of trust preferred securities, seeking damages and a declaration that the Company must make certain future fee payments. The time for the Company to respond to the Complaint has not yet arrived and no discovery or other proceedings have yet taken place. The Company intends to defend the action vigorously.

In addition to the matters set forth above, the Company is a party to various routine legal proceedings and regulatory inquiries arising out of the ordinary course of the Company’s business. Management believes that the results of these routine legal proceedings and regulatory matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, or on the Company’s operations and cash flows. However, the Company cannot estimate the legal fees and expenses to be incurred in connection with these routine matters and, therefore, is unable to determine whether these future legal fees and expenses will have a material impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows. It is the Company’s policy to expense legal and other fees as incurred.

Alesco XIV Guarantee

AFN invested in a CDO (Alesco XIV) in which Assured Guaranty (“Assured”) was providing credit support to the senior interests in securitizations. Alesco XIV made a loan (the “Guaranteed Loan”) to a particular borrower and AFN entered into an arrangement with Assured whereby AFN agreed to make payments to Assured upon the occurrence of both (i) a loss on the Guaranteed Loan; and (ii) a loss suffered by Assured on its overall credit support arrangement to Alesco XIV security holders. This arrangement is accounted for as a guarantee by the Company. At the Merger Date, the Company recorded a liability of $1,084 related to this arrangement which is included in accounts payable and other liabilities in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet. This amount does not represent the expected loss; rather it represents the Company’s estimate of the fair value of its guarantee (i.e. the amount it would have to pay a third party to assume this obligation). This arrangement is being accounted for as a guarantee. The value will be adjusted under certain limited circumstances such as: (i) when the guarantee is extinguished or (ii) if payment of amounts under the guarantee become probable and estimable. The maximum potential loss to the Company on this arrangement is $8,750. Under certain circumstances, Assured can require the Company to post liquid collateral.

Contribution to Alesco Preferred Funding X Legal Settlement

Alesco Preferred Funding X, Ltd. (“Alesco X”) is a CDO that was managed by Cohen & Company Financial Management, LLC (“CCFM”). Alesco X owned $4,000 of Trust Preferred Securities issued by Leawood Bancshares Statutory Trust I (the “Leawood TruPS”). Leawood Bancshares, Inc. (“Leawood”), and Alesco X entered into a letter agreement dated March 1, 2010 (the “Leawood/Alesco Agreement”) regarding the sale back to Leawood of the Leawood TruPS in exchange for $1,000 upon the occurrence of certain conditions related to the sale of Leawood to CrossFirst Holdings, LLC (“CrossFirst”). The proposed transaction contemplated by the Leawood/Alesco Agreement never closed as a result of the objections of investors in Alesco X, but the ultimate transaction between Leawood and CrossFirst did close.

On or about July 23, 2010, Leawood and CrossFirst Holdings, LLC filed a lawsuit against Alesco X in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 10-CV-5637 (JSR) alleging that there was a breach of the Leawood/Alesco Agreement. CCFM was not named in the lawsuit. ATP Management LLC, as purchaser of the management rights of Alesco X from CCFM, took over the defense of the action. In late October 2011, the Court issued a summary judgment decision against Alesco X and in favor of Leawood and CrossFirst. On or about December 6, 2011, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a judgment in favor of Leawood and against Alesco in the amount of $1,618 and in favor of CrossFirst and against Alesco X in the amount of $1,840. In exchange for a full release from Leawood, CrossFirst and Alesco X, the Company agreed to contribute $2,250 to Alesco X’s settlement of the judgment. This amount was included as a component of professional services and other operating expense in the consolidated statement of operations in the fourth quarter of 2011. The Company made the payment of $2,250 in April 2012.

Accumulated Dividends and Dividend Equivalents on Restricted Stock and Restricted Units

From time to time, the Company has granted restricted stock and restricted units which are entitled to receive dividends or dividend equivalents as and when such dividends or dividend equivalents are declared and paid by the Company; provided, however, that the cash dividends or dividend equivalents on such restricted stock or restricted units are held by the Company until the period of forfeiture lapses and forfeited if the underlying restricted shares or restricted units are forfeited. The Company’s potential liability, assuming the restricted stock or restricted units were to vest as of June 30, 2012, is approximately $306.