Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	NOTE 19 – 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 our 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”). This lawsuit relates to the same transactions that are the subject of the civil lawsuit filed by the school districts noted below. The SEC has asserted claims under Section 15c(1)(A), Section 10b, and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and Sections 17a(1), 17a(2), and 17a(3) of the Securities 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. We have denied the substantive allegations of the SEC complaint, as amended, and asserted various affirmative defenses. The parties are currently taking written discovery and depositions, with all discovery scheduled to close in April 2015. After close of discovery, we anticipate the District Court will set the case for trial. 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. Wisconsin School Districts/RBC OPEB lawsuit 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 was filed against our company, Stifel, as well as Royal Bank of Canada Europe Ltd. and certain of its affiliates (“RBC”) by the school districts and the individual trustees for other post-employment benefit (“OPEB”) trusts established by those school districts (collectively the “Plaintiffs”). This lawsuit relates to the same transactions that are the subject of the SEC action noted above. We entered into a settlement of the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against our company and Stifel in March 2012. The school districts are continuing their lawsuit against RBC, and we are pursuing claims against RBC to recover payments we have made to the school districts and for amounts owed to the OPEB trusts. Subsequent to the settlement, RBC asserted claims against the school districts, our company, and Stifel for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict liability misrepresentation, and information negligently provided for the guidance of others based upon our role in connection with the school districts’ purchase of the CDOs. RBC has also asserted claims against Stifel for civil conspiracy and conspiracy to injure its business based upon the settlement by Stifel with the school districts and pursuit of claims against RBC. We have filed our Answer, denying RBC’s claims, and discovery continues in the case. We believe we have meritorious legal and factual defenses to the claims asserted by RBC and we intend to vigorously defend those claims. EDC Bond Issuance Matter In January 2008, our company was the initial purchaser of a $50.0 million bond offering under Rule 144A by the Lake of the Torches Economic Development Corporation (“EDC”) which is associated with Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (together with EDC, the “Tribe”). We then sold all of the bonds to LDF Acquisition LLC, a special purpose vehicle created by Saybrook Tax Exempt Investors LLC (collectively, “Saybrook”), with Wells Fargo Bank, NA (“Wells Fargo”) as the indenture trustee for the bonds. In 2009, Saybrook and Wells Fargo brought an action in a Wisconsin federal court against the Tribe to enforce the bonds (the “2009 federal action”). The Wisconsin federal court declared, in relevant part, the Bond Indenture to be void ab initio, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed but remanded the case for further proceedings as to enforceability of the other bond documents. In April 2012, Saybrook dismissed the 2009 federal action. On January 16, 2012, Saybrook filed a new action in Wisconsin state court (the “State Action”), naming as defendants our company, Stifel, the Tribe, and the law firm of Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. (“G&K”), which served as both issuer’s and bond counsel. Saybrook seeks enforcement of the obligations under the bonds, a judgment for rescission, restitution (including the amounts paid by Saybrook for the bonds), and costs. Alternatively, if Saybrook fails to recover from the Tribe, Saybrook seeks to recover damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees from us and/or G&K. In the State Action, Saybrook asserts a claim against our company for fraud under the Wisconsin Uniform Securities Law, and with respect to Stifel, claims for breaches of implied warranties of validity and title, securities fraud and statutory misrepresentation under Wisconsin state law, and intentional and negligent misrepresentations relating to the validity of the bond documents and their sovereign immunity waivers. Saybrook also asserts claims against Stifel for rescission based on alleged misrepresentation or mutual mistake. We have answered the Complaint in the State Action, denying the claims, and filed cross-claims against the Tribe and G&K. The Tribe moved to dismiss our cross-claim, but on November 6, 2014, the court denied that motion. The Tribe also moved to dismiss Saybrook’s claims against them on the grounds that the state court does not have jurisdiction over them due to assertions that they have sovereign immunity from suit. On October 23, 2014, the state court denied the Tribe’s motion to dismiss Saybrook’s claims against the Tribe. The Tribe filed a petition for leave to appeal the non-final orders denying their motions to dismiss Stifel’s cross-claims and Saybrook’s claims. On January 30, 2015, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals denied the Tribe’s petition, thereby allowing the State Action to move forward against the Tribe. Additionally, G&K filed a cross-claim against us seeking contribution and alleging that if G&K is found negligent, then we, too, must have been negligent. We have answered G&K’s cross-claim, denying those allegations. Additionally, G&K filed a third-party complaint against Dentons US LLP. Written discovery is ongoing between all the parties in the State Action. Additionally, on April 25, 2013, the Tribe filed a suit against Saybrook, our company, Stifel, G&K, and Wells Fargo in the Lac du Flambeau Tribal Court, seeking a declaration that all of the bond documents are void (the “Tribal Action”). Our motion to dismiss the Tribal Action was denied, and on August 27, 2013 we filed an Answer, denying the claims. In response to the Tribal Action, on May 24, 2013 we, together with Saybrook, Wells Fargo and G&K, also filed an action in a Wisconsin federal court (the “Federal Action”) seeking to enjoin the Tribal Action. On May 16, 2014 the Wisconsin federal court preliminarily enjoined the Tribal Parties from litigating the Tribal Action. The Tribal Parties have appealed the preliminary injunction to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In light of the Tribal Parties’ appeal, the Tribal Action is stayed pending the resolution of the appeal. The appeal has been fully briefed by the parties, and is scheduled for oral argument before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on April 9, 2015. While there can be no assurance that we will be successful, based upon currently available information and review with outside counsel, we believe that we have meritorious legal and factual defenses to the matter, and we intend to vigorously defend the substantive claims as well as the procedural attempt to move the litigation to the Lac du Flambeau Tribal Court.

NOTE 19 – 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 our 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”). This lawsuit relates to the same transactions that are the subject of the civil lawsuit filed by the school districts noted below. The SEC has asserted claims under Section 15c(1)(A), Section 10b, and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and Sections 17a(1), 17a(2), and 17a(3) of the Securities 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. We have denied the substantive allegations of the SEC complaint, as amended, and asserted various affirmative defenses. The parties are currently taking written discovery and depositions, with all discovery scheduled to close in April 2015. After close of discovery, we anticipate the District Court will set the case for trial. 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.

Wisconsin School Districts/RBC OPEB lawsuit

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 was filed against our company, Stifel, as well as Royal Bank of Canada Europe Ltd. and certain of its affiliates (“RBC”) by the school districts and the individual trustees for other post-employment benefit (“OPEB”) trusts established by those school districts (collectively the “Plaintiffs”). This lawsuit relates to the same transactions that are the subject of the SEC action noted above. We entered into a settlement of the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against our company and Stifel in March 2012. The school districts are continuing their lawsuit against RBC, and we are pursuing claims against RBC to recover payments we have made to the school districts and for amounts owed to the OPEB trusts. Subsequent to the settlement, RBC asserted claims against the school districts, our company, and Stifel for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict liability misrepresentation, and information negligently provided for the guidance of others based upon our role in connection with the school districts’ purchase of the CDOs. RBC has also asserted claims against Stifel for civil conspiracy and conspiracy to injure its business based upon the settlement by Stifel with the school districts and pursuit of claims against RBC. We have filed our Answer, denying RBC’s claims, and discovery continues in the case. We believe we have meritorious legal and factual defenses to the claims asserted by RBC and we intend to vigorously defend those claims.

EDC Bond Issuance Matter

In January 2008, our company was the initial purchaser of a $50.0 million bond offering under Rule 144A by the Lake of the Torches Economic Development Corporation (“EDC”) which is associated with Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (together with EDC, the “Tribe”). We then sold all of the bonds to LDF Acquisition LLC, a special purpose vehicle created by Saybrook Tax Exempt Investors LLC (collectively, “Saybrook”), with Wells Fargo Bank, NA (“Wells Fargo”) as the indenture trustee for the bonds. In 2009, Saybrook and Wells Fargo brought an action in a Wisconsin federal court against the Tribe to enforce the bonds (the “2009 federal action”). The Wisconsin federal court declared, in relevant part, the Bond Indenture to be void ab initio, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed but remanded the case for further proceedings as to enforceability of the other bond documents. In April 2012, Saybrook dismissed the 2009 federal action.

On January 16, 2012, Saybrook filed a new action in Wisconsin state court (the “State Action”), naming as defendants our company, Stifel, the Tribe, and the law firm of Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. (“G&K”), which served as both issuer’s and bond counsel. Saybrook seeks enforcement of the obligations under the bonds, a judgment for rescission, restitution (including the amounts paid by Saybrook for the bonds), and costs. Alternatively, if Saybrook fails to recover from the Tribe, Saybrook seeks to recover damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees from us and/or G&K. In the State Action, Saybrook asserts a claim against our company for fraud under the Wisconsin Uniform Securities Law, and with respect to Stifel, claims for breaches of implied warranties of validity and title, securities fraud and statutory misrepresentation under Wisconsin state law, and intentional and negligent misrepresentations relating to the validity of the bond documents and their sovereign immunity waivers. Saybrook also asserts claims against Stifel for rescission based on alleged misrepresentation or mutual mistake.

We have answered the Complaint in the State Action, denying the claims, and filed cross-claims against the Tribe and G&K. The Tribe moved to dismiss our cross-claim, but on November 6, 2014, the court denied that motion. The Tribe also moved to dismiss Saybrook’s claims against them on the grounds that the state court does not have jurisdiction over them due to assertions that they have sovereign immunity from suit. On October 23, 2014, the state court denied the Tribe’s motion to dismiss Saybrook’s claims against the Tribe. The Tribe filed a petition for leave to appeal the non-final orders denying their motions to dismiss Stifel’s cross-claims and Saybrook’s claims. On January 30, 2015, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals denied the Tribe’s petition, thereby allowing the State Action to move forward against the Tribe. Additionally, G&K filed a cross-claim against us seeking contribution and alleging that if G&K is found negligent, then we, too, must have been negligent. We have answered G&K’s cross-claim, denying those allegations. Additionally, G&K filed a third-party complaint against Dentons US LLP. Written discovery is ongoing between all the parties in the State Action.

Additionally, on April 25, 2013, the Tribe filed a suit against Saybrook, our company, Stifel, G&K, and Wells Fargo in the Lac du Flambeau Tribal Court, seeking a declaration that all of the bond documents are void (the “Tribal Action”). Our motion to dismiss the Tribal Action was denied, and on August 27, 2013 we filed an Answer, denying the claims.

In response to the Tribal Action, on May 24, 2013 we, together with Saybrook, Wells Fargo and G&K, also filed an action in a Wisconsin federal court (the “Federal Action”) seeking to enjoin the Tribal Action. On May 16, 2014 the Wisconsin federal court preliminarily enjoined the Tribal Parties from litigating the Tribal Action. The Tribal Parties have appealed the preliminary injunction to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In light of the Tribal Parties’ appeal, the Tribal Action is stayed pending the resolution of the appeal. The appeal has been fully briefed by the parties, and is scheduled for oral argument before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on April 9, 2015.

While there can be no assurance that we will be successful, based upon currently available information and review with outside counsel, we believe that we have meritorious legal and factual defenses to the matter, and we intend to vigorously defend the substantive claims as well as the procedural attempt to move the litigation to the Lac du Flambeau Tribal Court.