Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies:

Contractual Obligations

The Company has contractual obligations to make future payments in connection with non-cancelable lease agreements and other contractual commitments as well as uncalled capital commitments to investment partnerships that may be called over the next two years. The following table sets forth these contractual obligations by fiscal year:

		2016				2017				2018				2019				2020				Thereafter				Total
Minimum rental commitments		$	5,508			$	4,767			$	3,846			$	3,406			$	3,488			$	17,583			$	38,598

These rental commitments are for operating leases of the Company. The Company currently has no commitments associated with capital leases. Equipment and office rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 was $5,228, $5,351 and $5,353, respectively. The Company also has $212 of uncalled capital commitments to investment partnerships that may be called over the next two years. The Company cannot currently determine when, if ever, these capital commitments will be called.

Clearing Brokers

The Company’s broker-dealer subsidiaries clear all of their securities transactions through clearing brokers on a fully disclosed basis. Pursuant to the terms of the agreements between our broker-dealer subsidiaries and their respective clearing brokers, the clearing brokers have the right to charge our broker-dealer subsidiaries for losses that result from a counterparty’s failure to fulfill its contractual obligations.

As the right to charge our broker-dealer subsidiaries has no maximum amount and applies to all trades executed through the clearing brokers, the Company believes there is no maximum amount assignable to this right. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company has recorded no liabilities, and during the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the Company did not incur any significant costs with regard to this right.

Litigation

As of December 31, 2015, except as described below, the Company was neither a defendant nor plaintiff in any lawsuits or arbitrations nor involved in any governmental or self-regulatory organization matters that are expected to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. The Company has been named as a defendant in a small number of civil lawsuits relating to its various businesses. In addition, the Company is subject to various reviews, examinations, investigations and other inquiries by governmental agencies and self regulatory organizations. There can be no assurance that these matters individually or in aggregate will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity in a future period. However, based on management’s review with counsel, resolution of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Many aspects of the Company’s business involve substantial risks of liability and litigation. Underwriters, broker-dealers and investment advisers are exposed to liability under federal and state securities laws, other federal and state laws and court decisions, including decisions with respect to underwriters’ liability and limitations on indemnification, as well as with respect to the handling of customer accounts. For example, underwriters may be held liable for material misstatements or omissions of fact in a prospectus used in connection with the securities being offered and broker-dealers may be held liable for statements made by their securities analysts or other personnel. In the past, FBRCM and MLV have been named as a defendant in a small number of securities claims involving their respective investment banking clients as a result of such broker-dealer’s role as an underwriter. In these cases, the underwriting agreement provides, subject to certain conditions, that the investment banking client is required to indemnify the underwriters against certain claims or liabilities, including claims or liabilities under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), or contribute to payments which the underwriters are required to make as a result of the litigation. There can be no assurance that such indemnification or contribution will ultimately be available to the Company or that an investment banking client will be able to satisfy its indemnity or contribution obligations when due.

FBRCM has been named a defendant in the putative class action lawsuit Waterford Township Police & Fire, Retirement System, vs. Regional Management Corp. et al., pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The amended complaint, filed on November 24, 2014 (the “Amended Complaint”), names FBRCM as a co-managing underwriter of offerings in September 2013 and December 2013. Plaintiffs allege that the Registration Statement and Prospectus used in connection with these offerings were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. The Amended Complaint asserts claims against all the underwriters under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act. Regional Management has agreed to indemnify all the underwriters, including FBRCM, pursuant to the operative underwriting agreement. In response to the defendants’ motions to dismiss, filed on January 23, 2015, the putative class plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”), which shall serve as the operative complaint. The underwriter defendants have moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and the briefing was completed in July 2015.

In November 2015, MLV was named a defendant in two putative class action lawsuits alleging substantially identical claims against the officers and directors and underwriters of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. (“Miller”). The lawsuits, styled Goldberg v. Miller et al., and Gaynor v. Miller et al., are currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and prospectuses issued in connection with 6 offerings (February 13, 2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26; 2013; October 17, 2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged aggregate offering price of approximately $151,000. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement of certain costs and expenses. Although MLV is contractually entitled to be indemnified by Miller in connection with this lawsuit, Miller filed for bankruptcy in October 2015 and this likely will decrease or eliminate the value of the indemnity that MLV receives from Miller. The plaintiffs are currently seeking to remand to Tennessee state court; defendants are vigorously opposing the remand.

In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company establishes an accrued liability for litigation and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. When a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish an accrued liability. As a litigation or regulatory matter develops, management, in conjunction with counsel, evaluates on an ongoing basis whether such matter presents a loss contingency that is probable and estimable. The pending cases discussed above involving FBRCM and MLV are at a preliminary stage, and based on management’s review with counsel and present information known by management, a loss contingency for these matters was not probable and estimable as of December 31, 2015.

In certain circumstances, broker-dealers and asset managers may also be held liable by customers and clients for losses sustained on investments. In recent years, there has been an increasing incidence of litigation and actions by government agencies and self regulatory organizations involving the securities industry, including class actions that seek substantial damages. The Company is also subject to the risk of litigation, including litigation that may be without merit. As the Company intends to actively defend any such litigation, significant legal expenses could be incurred. An adverse resolution of any future litigation against the Company could materially affect its financial condition, operating results and liquidity.

Other

In February 2012, pursuant to a compensation plan, the Company granted certain employees an interest in a pool of assets valued at $3,000. The individual awards are subject to a 4-year cliff vesting requirement based on continued service. The terms of the compensation plan provide that any forfeited awards be reallocated to remaining award recipients and that the total value of the asset pool at the date of vesting be distributed. The specific assets in the pool may change over the vesting period and the Company may settle the awards in cash. The value of the asset pool was $3,849 as of December 31, 2015. During the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 the Company recorded expense of $896, $1,267 and $879, respectively, related to this plan. These amounts are included in compensation and benefits in the consolidated statements of operations.