Commitments and contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and contingencies

Commitments and contingencies

Commitments

The Company had capital commitments of $0.7 million with respect to unfunded obligation in private equity funds sponsored by the Company and $9.5 million of commitments related to additional operating leases that have not yet commenced.

As of December 31, 2025, the Company had no collateralized or uncollateralized letters of credit outstanding.

In the normal course of business, the Company enters into commitments for debt and equity underwritings. As of December 31, 2025, the Company had certain open underwriting commitments, which were subsequently settled in open market transactions and did not result in any losses.

Contingencies

Many aspects of the Company's business involve substantial risks of liability. In the normal course of business, the Company has been named as defendant or co-defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, creating substantial exposure and periodic expenses. Certain of the actual or threatened legal matters include claims for substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages. These proceedings arise primarily from securities brokerage, asset management and investment banking activities. The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company's business, which may result in expenses, adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief. The investigations include inquiries from the SEC, FINRA and other regulators.

The Company accrues for estimated loss contingencies related to legal and regulatory matters within other expenses in the consolidated income statement when available information indicates that it is probable a liability had been incurred and the Company can reasonably estimate the amount of that loss. In many proceedings, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount of any loss. In addition, even where a loss is possible or an exposure to loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued with respect to a previously recognized loss contingency, it is often not possible to reasonably estimate the size of the possible loss or range of loss or possible additional losses or range of additional losses.

For certain legal and regulatory proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably estimate such losses, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek substantial, indeterminate or special damages. Counsel may be required to review, analyze and resolve numerous issues, including through potentially lengthy discovery and determination of important factual matters, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings in question, before the Company can reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss or additional loss for the proceeding. Even after lengthy review and analysis, the Company, in many legal and regulatory proceedings, may not be able to reasonably estimate possible losses or range of losses. The Company does not believe that a loss is probable or that it can reasonably estimate a loss or losses from the Liberty Capital Group v. Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. et. al and accordingly no loss accrual has currently been made for this matter.

For certain other legal and regulatory proceedings, the Company can estimate possible losses, or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, but does not believe, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that such losses individually, or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements as a whole.

For legal and 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 $253 million. This estimated aggregate range is based upon currently available information for those legal proceedings in which the Company is involved, where the Company can make an estimate for such losses. For certain cases, the Company does not believe that it can make an estimate. The foregoing aggregate 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 more than the current estimate.

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 of 1934 and Rule 15c2-12 thereunder as well as Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB") 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 and pay a civil penalty. On January 30, 2024, Oppenheimer and the SEC reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation pursuant to which Oppenheimer would pay a civil penalty of $1.2 million. The settlement was subject to Oppenheimer obtaining a waiver of certain statutory disqualifications, which Oppenheimer received in December 2025. On December 10, 2025, the Court entered a final judgment enjoining Oppenheimer from further violations of Section 15B (c) (1) of the Exchange Act as well as Rule 15c2-12 thereunder as well as MSRB Rules G-17 and G-27. On January 7, 2026, Oppenheimer paid the $1.2 million fine to the SEC.

On June 6, 2025, a complaint in a putative class action entitled Liberty Capital Group, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Oppenheimer Holdings Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., and Oppenheimer Asset Management Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ("District Court"). Plaintiff purports to represent customers who had cash deposits or balances in the Advantage Bank Deposit (“ABD”) program. Plaintiff alleges that the Company paid customers unreasonably low interest rates in the ABD program and seeks unspecified damages. Plaintiff alleges breaches of the terms and conditions of the ABD program and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duties, violation of New York General Business Law (the “GBL”), negligence, negligent misrepresentations and unjust enrichment. On August 8, 2025, Oppenheimer filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on a number of grounds. On October 4, 2025, the court issued an order dismissing Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. and Oppenheimer Asset Management Inc. from the case, and granting in part, and denying in part, Oppenheimer’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, Oppenheimer's motion to dismiss plaintiff's causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty for non-advisory clients, unjust enrichment, negligence and negligent misrepresentation were granted, while the motion to dismiss causes of action for breach of the terms and conditions and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty for advisory clients and violation of the GBL were denied. On October 21, 2025, plaintiff moved for class certification, which Oppenheimer opposed. On December 8, 2025, the Court issued its decision granting class certification on plaintiff’s causes of action for breach of the terms and conditions and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the GBL. The Court held that plaintiff did not have standing to assert a class claim for breach of fiduciary duty, but granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint by December 22, 2025 to include a plaintiff with standing. Plaintiff did not amend its complaint. On December 22, 2025, Oppenheimer filed a petition for permission to appeal the decision granting class certification with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which petition is currently pending. The case is scheduled for trial commencing in June, 2026, and it is likely that a decision by the trial jury will be rendered in the District Court this fiscal year. Oppenheimer believes the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against this action.