Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Legal Proceedings
Legal Proceedings	Note 18 – Legal Proceedings Our company and its subsidiaries are named in and subject to various proceedings and claims arising primarily from our securities business activities, including lawsuits, arbitration claims, class actions, and regulatory matters. Some of these claims seek substantial compensatory, punitive, or indeterminate damages. Our company and its subsidiaries are also involved in other reviews, investigations, and proceedings by governmental and self-regulatory organizations regarding our business, which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions, and other relief. We are contesting the allegations in these claims, and we believe that there are meritorious defenses in each of these lawsuits, arbitrations, and regulatory investigations. In view of the number and diversity of claims against the company, the number of jurisdictions in which litigation is pending, and the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation and other claims, we cannot state with certainty what the eventual outcome of pending litigation or other claims will be. We have established reserves for potential losses that are probable and reasonably estimable that may result from pending and potential legal actions, investigations and regulatory proceedings. In many cases, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount or range of any potential loss, particularly where proceedings may be in relatively early stages or where plaintiffs are seeking substantial or indeterminate damages. Matters frequently need to be more developed before a loss or range of loss can reasonably be estimated. In our opinion, based on currently available information, review with outside legal counsel, and consideration of amounts provided for in our consolidated financial statements with respect to these matters, including the matters described below, the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse impact on our financial position and results of operations. However, resolution of one or more of these matters may have a material effect on the results of operations in any future period, depending upon the ultimate resolution of those matters and depending upon the level of income for such period. For matters where a reserve has not been established and for which we believe a loss is reasonably possible, as well as for matters where a reserve has been recorded but for which an exposure to loss in excess of the amount accrued is reasonably possible, based on currently available information, we believe that such losses will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements. SEC/Wisconsin Lawsuit The SEC filed a civil lawsuit against our company in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on August 10, 2011. The action arises out of our role in investments made by five Southeastern Wisconsin school districts (the "school districts") in transactions involving collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"). These transactions are described in more detail below in connection with the civil lawsuit filed by the school districts. The SEC has asserted claims under Section 10b and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, Sections 17a(1), 17a(2) and 17a(3) of the Securities Act and Section 15c(1)(A) of the Exchange Act. The claims are based upon both alleged misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the sale of the CDOs to the school districts, as well as the allegedly unsuitable nature of the CDOs. On October 31, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. Briefs supporting and opposing our motion have been filed with the Court. We believe, based upon currently available information and review with outside counsel, that we have meritorious defenses to the SEC's lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend the SEC's claims. We were named in a civil lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (the "Wisconsin State Court") on September 29, 2008. The lawsuit has been filed against our company, Stifel Nicolaus, as well as Royal Bank of Canada Europe Ltd. ("RBC"), and certain other RBC entities (collectively the "Defendants") by the school districts and the individual trustees for other post-employment benefit ("OPEB") trusts established by those school districts (collectively the "Plaintiffs"). The suit arises out of purchases of certain CDOs by the OPEB trusts. The RBC entities structured and served as "arranger" for the CDOs. We served as the placement agent/broker in connection with the transactions. The school districts each formed trusts that made investments designed to address their OPEB liabilities. The total amount of the investments made by the OPEB trusts was $200.0 million. Since the investments were made, we believe their value has declined, resulting in a total loss for the OPEB trusts. The Plaintiffs have asserted that the school districts contributed $37.5 million to the OPEB trusts to purchase the investments. The balance of $162.5 million used to purchase the investments was borrowed by the OPEB trusts from Depfa Bank. The recourse under the loan agreements entered into by Depfa Bank is each of the OPEB trusts' respective assets and the moral obligation of each school district. The legal claims asserted include violation of the Wisconsin Securities Act, fraud, and negligence. The lawsuit seeks equitable relief, unspecified compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiffs claim that the RBC entities and our company either made misrepresentations or failed to disclose material facts in connection with the sale of the CDOs, and thus allegedly violated the Wisconsin Securities Act. We believe the Plaintiffs reviewed and understood the relevant offering materials and that the investments were suitable based upon, among other things, our receipt of written acknowledgement of risks from each of the Plaintiffs. The Wisconsin State Court denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss, and the Defendants have responded to the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint, denying the substantive allegations and asserting various affirmative defenses. Stifel Nicolaus and the RBC entities have asserted cross-claims for indemnity and contribution against each other. We believe, based upon currently available information and review with outside counsel, that we have meritorious defenses to this lawsuit, and intend to vigorously defend all of the Plaintiffs' claims. Additionally, on July 25, 2011, we entered into a binding letter agreement to purchase, at a substantial discount, the approximately $162.5 million face value notes referenced above issued by Depfa Bank in connection with the loans made to the OPEB trusts formed by the school districts (the "Depfa notes"). The Plaintiffs' liabilities to repay the Depfa Notes compose the majority of the Plaintiffs' claimed damages. We subsequently consummated such purchase on August 23, 2011 pursuant to a definitive agreement with Depfa Bank. Included in the consolidated results of operations is a provision related to the estimated probable litigation-related costs associated with the civil and regulatory investigation in connection with the OPEB matters. TWP LLC FINRA Matter On April 28, 2010, FINRA commenced an administrative proceeding against TWP involving a transaction undertaken by a former employee in which approximately $15.7 million of ARS were sold from a TWPG account to the accounts of three customers. FINRA alleged that TWP violated various NASD and FINRA rules, as well as Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. TWP's answer denied the substantive allegations and asserted various affirmative defenses. TWP repurchased the ARS at issue from the customers at par. FINRA sought fines and other relief against TWP and the former employee. On November 8, 2011, the FINRA hearing panel fined TWP $0.2 million for not having adequate supervisory procedures governing principal transactions in violation of NASD rules and ordered TWP to pay certain administrative fees and costs. The FINRA hearing panel dismissed all other charges against TWP and the former employee. On December 5, 2011, FINRA appealed the hearing panel's findings to the National Adjudicatory Council. EDC Bond Issuance Matter On January 16, 2012, our company and Stifel Nicolaus were named as defendants in a suit filed in Wisconsin state court with respect to Stifel Nicolaus' role as initial purchaser in a $50.0 million bond offering under Rule 144A in January 2008. The bonds were issued by the Lake of the Torches Economic Development Corporation ("EDC") in connection with certain new financing for the construction of a proposed new casino, as well as refinancing of indebtedness involving Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (the "Tribe"), who are also defendants in the action, together with Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. ("G&K") who served as both issuer's counsel and bond counsel in the transaction. In an ongoing action in federal court in Wisconsin related to the transaction, EDC was successful in its assertion that the bond indenture was void as an unapproved "management contract" under National Indian Gaming Commission regulations, and that accordingly the waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the indenture was void. After a remand from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal action continues regarding the validity of the bond documents other than the bond indenture. Saybrook Tax Exempt Investors LLC, a qualified institutional buyer and the sole bondholder through its special purpose vehicle LDF Acquisition LLC (collectively, "Saybrook"), and Wells Fargo Bank, NA ("Wells Fargo"), indenture trustee for the bonds (collectively, "plaintiffs"), brought the Wisconsin state court suit against EDC, our company and G&K, based on alleged misrepresentations about the enforceability of the indenture and the bonds and the waiver of sovereign immunity. Saybrook and Wells Fargo are also the plaintiffs in the federal court action, and they have moved the court to amend their claims in the federal action to include all of the claims and parties in the state court action. In the state court action, the plaintiffs allege that G&K represented in various legal opinions issued in the transaction, as well as in other documents associated with the transaction, that (i) the bonds and indenture were legally enforceable obligations of EDC and (ii) EDC's waivers of sovereign immunity were valid. The claims asserted against us are for breaches of implied warranties of validity and title, securities fraud and statutory misrepresentation under Wisconsin state law, intentional and negligent misrepresentations relating to those matters. To the extent EDC does not fully perform its obligations to Saybrook pursuant to the bonds, the plaintiffs seek a judgment for rescission, restitutionary damages, including the amounts paid by the plaintiffs for the bonds, and costs; alternatively, the plaintiffs seek to recover damages, costs and attorneys' fees from us. While there can be no assurance that we will be successful, we believe we have meritorious legal and factual defenses to the matter, and we intend to vigorously defend the claims.

Note 18 – Legal Proceedings

Our company and its subsidiaries are named in and subject to various proceedings and claims arising primarily from our securities business activities, including lawsuits, arbitration claims, class actions, and regulatory matters. Some of these claims seek substantial compensatory, punitive, or indeterminate damages. Our company and its subsidiaries are also involved in other reviews, investigations, and proceedings by governmental and self-regulatory organizations regarding our business, which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions, and other relief. We are contesting the allegations in these claims, and we believe that there are meritorious defenses in each of these lawsuits, arbitrations, and regulatory investigations. In view of the number and diversity of claims against the company, the number of jurisdictions in which litigation is pending, and the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation and other claims, we cannot state with certainty what the eventual outcome of pending litigation or other claims will be.

We have established reserves for potential losses that are probable and reasonably estimable that may result from pending and potential legal actions, investigations and regulatory proceedings. In many cases, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount or range of any potential loss, particularly where proceedings may be in relatively early stages or where plaintiffs are seeking substantial or indeterminate damages. Matters frequently need to be more developed before a loss or range of loss can reasonably be estimated.

In our opinion, based on currently available information, review with outside legal counsel, and consideration of amounts provided for in our consolidated financial statements with respect to these matters, including the matters described below, the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse impact on our financial position and results of operations. However, resolution of one or more of these matters may have a material effect on the results of operations in any future period, depending upon the ultimate resolution of those matters and depending upon the level of income for such period. For matters where a reserve has not been established and for which we believe a loss is reasonably possible, as well as for matters where a reserve has been recorded but for which an exposure to loss in excess of the amount accrued is reasonably possible, based on currently available information, we believe that such losses will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

SEC/Wisconsin Lawsuit

The SEC filed a civil lawsuit against our company in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on August 10, 2011. The action arises out of our role in investments made by five Southeastern Wisconsin school districts (the "school districts") in transactions involving collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"). These transactions are described in more detail below in connection with the civil lawsuit filed by the school districts. The SEC has asserted claims under Section 10b and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, Sections 17a(1), 17a(2) and 17a(3) of the Securities Act and Section 15c(1)(A) of the Exchange Act. The claims are based upon both alleged misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the sale of the CDOs to the school districts, as well as the allegedly unsuitable nature of the CDOs. On October 31, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. Briefs supporting and opposing our motion have been filed with the Court. We believe, based upon currently available information and review with outside counsel, that we have meritorious defenses to the SEC's lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend the SEC's claims.

We were named in a civil lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (the "Wisconsin State Court") on September 29, 2008. The lawsuit has been filed against our company, Stifel Nicolaus, as well as Royal Bank of Canada Europe Ltd. ("RBC"), and certain other RBC entities (collectively the "Defendants") by the school districts and the individual trustees for other post-employment benefit ("OPEB") trusts established by those school districts (collectively the "Plaintiffs").

The suit arises out of purchases of certain CDOs by the OPEB trusts. The RBC entities structured and served as "arranger" for the CDOs. We served as the placement agent/broker in connection with the transactions. The school districts each formed trusts that made investments designed to address their OPEB liabilities. The total amount of the investments made by the OPEB trusts was $200.0 million. Since the investments were made, we believe their value has declined, resulting in a total loss for the OPEB trusts. The Plaintiffs have asserted that the school districts contributed $37.5 million to the OPEB trusts to purchase the investments. The balance of $162.5 million used to purchase the investments was borrowed by the OPEB trusts from Depfa Bank. The recourse under the loan agreements entered into by Depfa Bank is each of the OPEB trusts' respective assets and the moral obligation of each school district. The legal claims asserted include violation of the Wisconsin Securities Act, fraud, and negligence. The lawsuit seeks equitable relief, unspecified compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiffs claim that the RBC entities and our company either made misrepresentations or failed to disclose material facts in connection with the sale of the CDOs, and thus allegedly violated the Wisconsin Securities Act. We believe the Plaintiffs reviewed and understood the relevant offering materials and that the investments were suitable based upon, among other things, our receipt of written acknowledgement of risks from each of the Plaintiffs. The Wisconsin State Court denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss, and the Defendants have responded to the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint, denying the substantive allegations and asserting various affirmative defenses. Stifel Nicolaus and the RBC entities have asserted cross-claims for indemnity and contribution against each other. We believe, based upon currently available information and review with outside counsel, that we have meritorious defenses to this lawsuit, and intend to vigorously defend all of the Plaintiffs' claims.

Additionally, on July 25, 2011, we entered into a binding letter agreement to purchase, at a substantial discount, the approximately $162.5 million face value notes referenced above issued by Depfa Bank in connection with the loans made to the OPEB trusts formed by the school districts (the "Depfa notes"). The Plaintiffs' liabilities to repay the Depfa Notes compose the majority of the Plaintiffs' claimed damages. We subsequently consummated such purchase on August 23, 2011 pursuant to a definitive agreement with Depfa Bank. Included in the consolidated results of operations is a provision related to the estimated probable litigation-related costs associated with the civil and regulatory investigation in connection with the OPEB matters.

TWP LLC FINRA Matter

On April 28, 2010, FINRA commenced an administrative proceeding against TWP involving a transaction undertaken by a former employee in which approximately $15.7 million of ARS were sold from a TWPG account to the accounts of three customers. FINRA alleged that TWP violated various NASD and FINRA rules, as well as Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. TWP's answer denied the substantive allegations and asserted various affirmative defenses. TWP repurchased the ARS at issue from the customers at par. FINRA sought fines and other relief against TWP and the former employee.

On November 8, 2011, the FINRA hearing panel fined TWP $0.2 million for not having adequate supervisory procedures governing principal transactions in violation of NASD rules and ordered TWP to pay certain administrative fees and costs. The FINRA hearing panel dismissed all other charges against TWP and the former employee. On December 5, 2011, FINRA appealed the hearing panel's findings to the National Adjudicatory Council.

EDC Bond Issuance Matter

On January 16, 2012, our company and Stifel Nicolaus were named as defendants in a suit filed in Wisconsin state court with respect to Stifel Nicolaus' role as initial purchaser in a $50.0 million bond offering under Rule 144A in January 2008. The bonds were issued by the Lake of the Torches Economic Development Corporation ("EDC") in connection with certain new financing for the construction of a proposed new casino, as well as refinancing of indebtedness involving Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (the "Tribe"), who are also defendants in the action, together with Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. ("G&K") who served as both issuer's counsel and bond counsel in the transaction. In an ongoing action in federal court in Wisconsin related to the transaction, EDC was successful in its assertion that the bond indenture was void as an unapproved "management contract" under National Indian Gaming Commission regulations, and that accordingly the waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the indenture was void. After a remand from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal action continues regarding the validity of the bond documents other than the bond indenture.

Saybrook Tax Exempt Investors LLC, a qualified institutional buyer and the sole bondholder through its special purpose vehicle LDF Acquisition LLC (collectively, "Saybrook"), and Wells Fargo Bank, NA ("Wells Fargo"), indenture trustee for the bonds (collectively, "plaintiffs"), brought the Wisconsin state court suit against EDC, our company and G&K, based on alleged misrepresentations about the enforceability of the indenture and the bonds and the waiver of sovereign immunity. Saybrook and Wells Fargo are also the plaintiffs in the federal court action, and they have moved the court to amend their claims in the federal action to include all of the claims and parties in the state court action. In the state court action, the plaintiffs allege that G&K represented in various legal opinions issued in the transaction, as well as in other documents associated with the transaction, that (i) the bonds and indenture were legally enforceable obligations of EDC and (ii) EDC's waivers of sovereign immunity were valid. The claims asserted against us are for breaches of implied warranties of validity and title, securities fraud and statutory misrepresentation under Wisconsin state law, intentional and negligent misrepresentations relating to those matters. To the extent EDC does not fully perform its obligations to Saybrook pursuant to the bonds, the plaintiffs seek a judgment for rescission, restitutionary damages, including the amounts paid by the plaintiffs for the bonds, and costs; alternatively, the plaintiffs seek to recover damages, costs and attorneys' fees from us. While there can be no assurance that we will be successful, we believe we have meritorious legal and factual defenses to the matter, and we intend to vigorously defend the claims.