XML 57 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

Commitments And Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies In the normal course of business, the Company is party to various claims and legal proceedings. One of SEI's principal subsidiaries, SIDCO, has been named as a defendant in certain putative class action complaints (the Complaints) related to leveraged exchange traded funds (ETFs) advised by ProShares Advisors, LLC. The first complaint was filed on August 5, 2009 and the subsequent cases were all consolidated in the Southern District of New York. The Complaints are purportedly made on behalf of all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired shares in various ProShares leveraged ETFs pursuant or traceable to allegedly false and misleading registration statements, prospectuses and statements of additional information. The Complaints name as defendants ProShares Advisors, LLC; ProShares Trust; ProShares Trust II, SIDCO, and various officers and trustees to ProShares Advisors, LLC; ProShares Trust and ProShares Trust II. The Complaints allege that SIDCO was the distributor and principal underwriter for the various ProShares leveraged ETFs that were distributed to authorized participants and ultimately shareholders. The Complaints allege that the registration statements for the ProShares ETFs were materially false and misleading because they failed adequately to describe the nature and risks of the investments and claim that SIDCO is liable for these purportedly material misstatements and omissions under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed by plaintiffs, and on September 7, 2012, the District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion dismissing with prejudice the plaintiffs' amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals a notice of appeal of the District Court's decision. Plaintiffs-appellants filed their brief on December 17, 2012 and later filed a corrected brief on January 3, 2013. The brief of defendants-appellees was filed on February 1, 2013. While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early phase, SEI believes that it has valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana. Five lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. One of the five actions purports to set forth claims on behalf of a class and also names SPTC as a defendant and, as described below, was certified as a class in December 2012. Two of the other actions also name SPTC as a defendant. All five actions name various defendants in addition to SEI, and, in all five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of action against SEI and SPTC under the Louisiana Securities Act. The putative class action originally included a claim against SEI and SPTC for an alleged violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act. Two of the other five actions include claims for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy. In addition, another group of plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension, State of Louisiana, against SEI and SPTC and other defendants asserting claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana Racketeering Act and conspiracy. The underlying allegations in all the actions are purportedly related to the role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The petitions allege that SEI and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise participated in the sale of “certificates of deposit” issued by Stanford International Bank. Two of the five actions filed in East Baton Rouge were removed to federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On August 31, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order and judgment that the causes of action alleged against SEI in the two removed actions were preempted by federal law and the court dismissed these cases with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling, and on March 19, 2012, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision of the United States District Court and remanded the actions for further proceedings. On July 18, 2012, SEI filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals in the Eleventh Circuit to permit the claims against SEI to proceed. SEI believes that the trial correctly concluded that the claims against SEI were barred by the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and is requesting that the Supreme Court reinstate that dismissal. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, and the court will consider the case in the fall of this year. The case filed in Ascension was also removed to federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Northern District of Texas. The schedule for responding to that complaint has not yet been established. The plaintiffs in the remaining two cases in East Baton Rouge have granted SEI and SPTC an extension to respond to the filings. SEI and SPTC filed exceptions in the class action pending in East Baton Rouge, which the Court granted in part and dismissed the claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and denied in part as to the other exceptions. SEI and SPTC filed an answer to the East Baton Rouge class action, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification; and SEI and SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment against certain named plaintiffs which the Court stated will not be set for hearing until after the hearing on the class certification motion. The Court in the East Baton Rouge action held a hearing on class certification on September 20, 2012. By oral decision on December 5, 2012 and later entered in a judgment signed on December 17, 2012 that was subsequently amended, the Court in East Baton Rouge certified a class to be composed of persons who purchased any Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit (SIB CDs) in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009; persons who renewed any SIB CD in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009; or any person for whom the Stanford Trust Company purchased SIB CDs in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009. On January 30, 2013, SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from the judgments that stated SEI's and SPTC's intention to move to stay the litigation. On February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for Leave to File First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition in which they ask the Court to allow them the petition in this case to add additional facts that were developed during discovery and adding claims against certain of SEI's insurance carriers. On February 5, 2013, the Court granted two of the motions for appeal and the motion for leave to amend. On February 15, 2013, SEI filed a motion for new trial, or, in the alternative, for reconsideration of the Court's order allowing amendment. On February 22, 2013, SEI filed a motion to stay proceedings in view of the pending Supreme Court case. On February 28, 2013, SEI responded to the First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition by filing an exception. On March 11, 2013, the insurance carrier defendants filed a notice of removal removing the case to the Middle District of Louisiana and on March 18, 2013, the insurance carrier defendants filed answers. On March 13, 2013, SEI notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) of this case as a potential tag-along action. On March 18, 2013, the insurance carrier defendants filed answers. On March 19, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, a motion for expedited briefing schedule, expedited status conference and expedited consideration of their motion to remand, a motion for leave to file under seal and a motion for order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(b) requiring removing defendants to supplement federal court record with certified copy of state court record. These motions are now fully briefed. On March 25, 2013, SEI filed a motion that the court decline to adopt the state court's order regarding class certification, which the court dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a determination of removal jurisdiction in an April 12, 2013 order that also dismissed without prejudice a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue filed on April 9, 2013 by one of the insurers. On April 1, 2013, the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions (OFI) filed a motion to remand and sever claims and a response to that motion by the insurers and opposition to that motion by the plaintiffs were filed on April 22, 2013. Along with the briefing in the Middle District of Louisiana, on March 13, 2013, SEI notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) of this case as a potential tag-along action. On March 19, 2013, plaintiffs notified the MDL that they had filed a motion to remand and asking the panel to decline to issue a conditional transfer order. On March 29, 2013, the MDL issued a conditional transfer order (CTO), which both plaintiffs and OFI oppose. On April 18, 2013, OFI filed a motion to vacate the CTO or, in the alternative, stay any ruling to transfer the matter until after the Middle District of Louisiana rules on OFI's motion to remand and sever. Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the CTO on April 19, 2013. SEI's response to those motions is due on or before May 9, 2013 and May 10, 2013 respectively. While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early phase, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Because of the uncertainty of the make-up of the classes, the outcome of the proceeding in the United States Supreme Court, the specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the lack of discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with respect to the foregoing lawsuits.

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration