XML 33 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.3.1.900

Commitments And Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2016
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. 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. One of the five actions purports to set forth claims on behalf of a class and also names SPTC as a defendant. 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/or SPTC under the Louisiana Securities Act. Two of the five actions include claims for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy. In addition, another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension 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 actions relate to the purported 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. The case filed in Ascension Parish was removed to federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The schedule for responding to that petition has not yet been established. The plaintiffs in two of the cases filed in East Baton Rouge have granted SEI and SPTC an indefinite extension to respond to the petitions. In a third East Baton Rouge action, brought as a class action, SEI and SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part, dismissing the claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for class certification, and SEI and SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court deferred the motion for summary judgment, stating that the motion would not be set for hearing until after the hearing on class certification. After the Court held a hearing on class certification, it certified a class composed of persons who purchased or renewed any Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit (SIB CDs) 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. SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from the class certification judgments. On February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for Leave to File a First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition in which they asked the Court to allow them to amend the petition and add 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 28, 2013, SEI responded to the First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition by seeking dismissal of the action. On March 11, 2013, the newly-added insurance carrier defendants removed the case to the Middle District of Louisiana. SEI notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) of this case as a potential tag-along action. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action to state court. On March 25, 2013, SEI filed a motion requesting that the federal court decline to adopt the state court's order regarding class certification, which the court dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a determination of the jurisdictional issue. On August 7, 2013, the MDL Panel transferred the matter against SEI to the Northern District of Texas. On October 1, 2014, SEI filed a renewed motion to dismiss in the Northern District of Texas, and on October 6, 2014, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand. On June 17, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss, and on June 24, 2015 set a briefing schedule for SEI and SPTC’s motion challenging the Louisiana court’s decision to certify a class, which motion was filed on July 15, 2015. SEI and SPTC filed their answer on July 1, 2015, and this case is now pending in the Northern District of Texas. On July 15, 2015, SEI and SPTC also filed motions seeking reconsideration of the District Court’s June 17 denial of the motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, seeking leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal of certain elements of the denial, as well as a motion seeking partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) with respect to claims brought under Section 712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law. On September 22, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC’s motion for reconsideration of the June 17 denial of the motion to dismiss and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims under Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to dismiss, or certify for interlocutory appeal, plaintiffs’ claims under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law. On November 4, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law. Consequently, the only claims of plaintiffs still pending before the District Court are plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability against SEI and SPTC under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law. In the two other cases filed in East Baton Rouge, brought by the same counsel who filed the class action, virtually all of the litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate litigation regarding the existence of federal subjection matter jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA). After the matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that court dismissed the action under SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment on February 26, 2014. The matter was remanded to state court and no material activity has taken place since that date. 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 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. A lawsuit entitled Steven Curd and Rebel Curd v. SEI Investments Management Corporation was filed against SIMC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on December 11, 2013. On August 28, 2014, the Court granted SIMC’s motion to dismiss the initial complaint in the lawsuit, but also granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. On October 2, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In the amended complaint, SEI Investments Global Funds Services (SGFS) was added as a defendant. The plaintiffs bring the case as a shareholder derivative action against SIMC and SGFS on behalf of certain SEI funds. The claims are based on Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, which allows shareholders of a mutual fund to sue the investment adviser of the fund or its affiliates for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty with respect to compensation received by the adviser or its affiliates. The plaintiffs have brought the suit against SIMC and SGFS with respect to five specific SEI Funds: the High Yield Bond, Tax-Managed Large Cap, and Tax-Managed Small/Mid Cap Funds, each of which is a series of the SEI Institutional Managed Trust, the Intermediate Term Municipal Fund, which is a series of the SEI Tax Exempt Trust, and the International Equity Fund, which is a series of the SEI Institutional International Trust (the SEI Funds). The plaintiffs seek: (1) damages for the SEI Funds in the amount of the alleged “excessive” fees earned by SIMC and SGFS beginning from the one year period prior to the filing of the lawsuit, plus interest, costs, and fees; (2) orders declaring that SIMC and SGFS allegedly violated Section 36(b) and enjoining SIMC and SGFS from further alleged violations; and (3) rescission of SIMC’s and SGFS’s contracts with the funds, and restitution of all allegedly excessive fees paid beginning from the one year period prior to the filing of the lawsuit, plus interest, costs, and fees. On November 24, 2014, SIMC and SGFS filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 13, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to SIMC, and granted the motion to dismiss with respect to SGFS. On September 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint reinstating SGFS as a defendant in the case. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, which is expected to be completed in early 2017. While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early phase, SIMC and SGFS believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously, and SIMC and SGFS are not reasonably able to provide an estimate of the ultimate loss, if any, with respect to this lawsuit. On November 26, 2014, a Writ of Summons was issued to two of our subsidiaries, SEI Investments - Global Fund Services Limited (GFSL) and SEI Investments - Trustee & Custodial Services (Ireland) Limited (T&C), to appear before the Court of First Instance Antwerp, Belgium. The plaintiffs in this case allege that through their initial investments in collective investment funds domiciled in Netherlands and subsequent transfer of claim rights to a Belgium domiciled partnership, they are beneficial owners of a portfolio of life settlement policies (the Portfolio) which lapsed due to a failure to make premium payments. The plaintiffs seek to recover jointly and severally from nine defendants including GFSL and T&C, damages of approximately $84 million. GFSL and T&C’s involvement in the litigation appears to arise out of their historical provision of administration and custody services, respectively, to the Strategic Life Settlement Fund PLC, who, together with its managers, appear to be the principal defendants in this claim. On December 4, 2015, the Belgium Court dismissed plaintiff's claims for a lack of jurisdiction. On December 22, 2015, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. While the outcome of this action is uncertain given its early phase and the lack of specific theories of liability asserted against GFSL and T&C, each of GFSL and T&C believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs’ claims and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously, and GFSL and T&C are not reasonably able to provide an estimate of the ultimate loss, if any, with respect to this lawsuit.

X
- References No definition available. + 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 commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=68068213&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=73718637&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration