XML 30 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies In the ordinary course of business, the Company from time to time enters into contracts containing indemnification obligations of the Company. These obligations may require the Company to make payments to another party upon the occurrence of certain events including the failure by the Company to meet its performance obligations under the contract. These contractual indemnification provisions are often standard contractual terms of the nature customarily found in the type of contracts entered into by the Company. In many cases, there are no stated or notional amounts included in the indemnification provisions. There are no amounts reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024 related to these indemnifications. Rubicon Wealth Management Prior to the relationship termination described in the following sentence, SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC), a wholly-owned operating subsidiary of SEI, held custody accounts for the end-clients of Rubicon Wealth Management LLC, an SPTC investment advisor client (Rubicon). On May 1, 2024, SPTC terminated its client relationship with Rubicon in light of the events associated with the Allegation (as defined below), and notified Rubicon clients with accounts at SPTC that they were required to transfer their accounts to other custodians. Beginning on July 10, 2024, nine of Rubicon’s clients that had custodial accounts at SPTC filed state civil actions for fraud in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania against Rubicon, its founder, Scott Mason, Mr. Mason’s wife, Lynne Mason, and Orchard Park Real Estate Holdings LLC (Orchard Park), a business owned by Mr. Mason. The fraud allegation (the Allegation) is based on the claim that Mr. Mason used Rubicon client funds to invest in Orchard Park, an entity allegedly formed and controlled by Mr. Mason, and that all such invested funds were subsequently withdrawn from Orchard Park by Mr. Mason and were used for his own, extensive personal expenses. The Company is also aware of at least four other cases filed in other jurisdictions against Rubicon and/or the Masons and/or Orchard Park, and there may be additional cases filed against Rubicon and/or the Masons of which the Company is unaware. On January 17, 2025, the SEC charged Mr. Mason, Rubicon, and Orchard Park with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Mr. Mason and Rubicon with violating Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 in connection with the Allegation. That same day, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced criminal charges against Mr. Mason. Mason, Rubicon and Orchard Park have consented to the entry of final judgments in the SEC matter, subject to court approval. On January 28, 2025, Mason pled guilty to nine criminal charges, including wire fraud, securities fraud, investment advisor fraud and filing false tax returns. A sentencing hearing has been scheduled for June 4, 2025. As of April 16, 2025, eight separate suits have been filed against SPTC in its capacity as custodian for the Rubicon accounts of the plaintiffs (collectively, the Plaintiffs). These actions were also filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania and are: Star Sitron vs. SEI Private Trust Company, Case No. 2024-17132 (Sitron); Charles Murray vs. SEI Private Trust Company, Case No. 2024-18391 (Murray); James A. Byrne & Sharon Byrne vs. SEI Private Trust Company, Case No. 2024-20612; Melody Pettinelli & Melody Pettinelli as Trustee of the Donald Pettinelli Trust dated 11/7/1996 vs. SEI Private Trust Company, Case. 2024-21377; Norman Love vs. SEI Private Trust Company, Case No. 2024-21361; Stephen Red & Carla Red vs. SEI Private Trust Company, Case No. 2024-21902; Edward A. Tettemer & Lyn K. Tettemer vs. SEI Private Trust Company, Case No. 2024-21827; and Jonathan Klein & Sara Klein vs. SEI Private Trust Company, Case No. 2024- 23294 (collectively, the Rubicon Actions). Based on the complaints that have thus far been filed in the Rubicon Actions, these actions allege several different claims, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), and aiding and abetting tortious conduct by SPTC in connection with certain transfers of Plaintiffs’ assets from SPTC custodial accounts to Orchard Park bank accounts. SPTC has been served with complaints in two of the Rubicon Actions, Sitron and Murray. In the remaining six Rubicon Actions, the Plaintiffs have commenced suit but have not filed their formal complaints. The Sitron and Murray cases are both in the early stages, with initial motion practice and discovery now occurring. On September 12, 2024 the Sitron court issued an initial case management order requiring, among other things, fact discovery to be completed within approximately 18 months and dispositive motions to be filed within 21 months from the commencement of the action. On August 8, 2024, SPTC filed preliminary objections to the plaintiff’s complaint in Sitron. On March 18, 2025, the Sitron court granted in part SPTC’s preliminary objections, dismissing with prejudice Sitron’s UTPCPL claim and claim of aiding and abetting tortious conduct, and denying SPTC’s remaining preliminary objections. On April 14, 2025, the court denied Sitron’s motion for partial reconsideration of the court’s March 18, 2025 order, and on April 14, 2025 the court denied Sitron’s motion to take an immediate appeal of the dismissal of the UTPCPL and aiding and abetting tortious conduct claims. On April 7, 2025, SPTC filed its Answer with New Matter to the Sitron complaint, and filed a writ of summons to join Rubicon, Mason, Orchard Park, and another Rubicon entity as additional defendants in the Sitron action. On October 7, 2024, the Murray court issued an initial case management order requiring, among other things, fact discovery to be completed within 9 months and dispositive motions to be filed within 12 months of commencement of the action. The parties are seeking to extend those deadlines to 18 months for discovery and 21 months for dispositive motions, which is the schedule in the Sitron matter. On October 16, 2024, SPTC filed preliminary objections to the plaintiff's claims in Murray. On December 13, 2024, the Murray court denied each of SPTC’s preliminary objections. On January 16, 2025, SPTC filed its Answer with New Matter to the Murray complaint. On January 17, 2025, SPTC filed a writ of summons to join Rubicon, Mason, Orchard Park, and another Rubicon entity as additional defendants in the Murray action, and on February 5, 2025, SPTC filed its joinder complaint against those additional defendants. While the Rubicon Actions are in their infancy and the ultimate outcomes of these litigations remain uncertain, SPTC intends to vigorously defend each of the Rubicon Actions. Currently, SPTC estimates that the aggregate amount of Rubicon client assets transferred at the direction of Mr. Mason from SPTC custodial accounts to Orchard Park bank accounts is approximately $15,000. In the event that SPTC is unsuccessful in its defense of the Rubicon Actions, SEI does not currently believe that the losses associated with such unsuccessful defense would exceed the approximately $15,000 of Rubicon client assets that Mr. Mason directed to be transferred to Orchard Park. United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority Supervisory Review of SEI Investments (Europe) Limited On July 31, 2024, SEI Investments (Europe) Limited (SIEL), an indirectly, wholly-owned operating subsidiary of SEI, received a final requirement notice from the Financial Conduct Authority of the United Kingdom (the FCA) under section 166(3)(a) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), requiring SIEL to engage a “Skilled Person” to undertake a two-stage review of SIEL’s governance arrangements and control environment. In the first stage, the Skilled Person is to provide SIEL and the FCA with a report setting out the Skilled Person’s view of the effectiveness of the control environment and governance arrangements with respect to key risks, as well as the Skilled Person’s recommendations where necessary to address any identified weaknesses (the Section 166 Report). In the second stage, the Skilled Person is to provide an independent view of the quality and completeness of the remediation carried out by SIEL to address any findings from the initial stage and any self-identified weaknesses, including a view on SIEL’s compliance with relevant regulations. The appointment of a Skilled Person is one of the regulatory tools used by the FCA to supervise and monitor firms it regulates. A Skilled Person is an independent third-party expert with the relevant knowledge and experience to undertake a review as described above. This is not an enforcement action nor an investigation but an action taken as part of its supervisory oversight. In August 2024, SIEL, with the approval of FCA, appointed the firm of Grant Thornton to act as the Skilled Person. On December 16, 2024, Grant Thornton delivered the first stage of its Skilled Person Report in which it concluded, in summary, that SIEL has an established corporate governance framework and risk management framework that it considered to be appropriate in design for the relative size and complexity of its activities. The Skilled Person Report did however make a number of recommendations for improvements in its governance arrangements with its U.S. parent, and with respect to SIEL’s three lines of defense: resourcing of control functions, strategy and culture. To provide the necessary assurance to the FCA of SIEL’s focus on addressing the recommendations and concerns, on February 26, 2025, SIEL voluntarily applied to the FCA under section 55L(5)(a) FSMA for the imposition by the FCA of requirements on its regulatory permission (“Voluntary Requirement” / “VREQ”). From February 26, 2025 onwards, SIEL may not, without the FCA’s prior written consent: •enter into new client agreements (contracts) where a material change in SIEL’s existing suite of propositions, systems or services is required or where significant senior management engagement would be needed; and •launch a new proposition, product or service that is not already offered by SIEL. The VREQ does not prevent SIEL from on-boarding new clients where this does not result in significant new service requirements or significant senior management engagement. The VREQ currently imposed on SIEL is reflected in full on the FCA Register. SIEL is fully committed to addressing the concerns raised by the FCA. The Company believes the actions SIEL is taking to remediate the issues identified in the Skilled Person Report will not only strengthen its business but also help maintain its focus on achieving positive customer outcomes, positioning SIEL for sustainable future growth. The VREQ will stay in effect unless and until varied or cancelled by the FCA (either on the application of SIEL or of the FCA’s own volition), until the FCA is satisfied that SIEL has demonstrated that it has addressed the concerns the FCA has communicated to it. Other Matters The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are party to various other examinations, investigations, actions and claims arising in the normal course of business that the Company does not believe are material. The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or the manner in which the Company conducts its business. Currently, the Company does not believe the amount of losses associated with these matters can be estimated. While the Company does not believe that the amount of such losses will, when liquidated or estimable, be material to its financial position, the assumptions may be incorrect and any such loss could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or the manner in which the Company conducts its business in the period(s) during which the underlying matters are resolved. Unfunded Commitments to Limited Partnership Funds The Company has unfunded commitments of $9,434 at March 31, 2025 to limited partnership funds (See Note 5).

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/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration