Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	NOTE 20 – 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 the 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”). These transactions are described in more detail below in connection with the civil lawsuit filed by the school districts. 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. On October 31, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. The District Court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss, and as a result the SEC has amended its complaint. We answered, denied the substantive allegations of the amended complaint and asserted various affirmative defenses. 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. 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. (“RBC”), and certain other RBC entities (collectively the “RBC entities”) 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. As we previously disclosed, we entered into a settlement of the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against our company and Stifel in March, 2012. The settlement provides the potential for the Plaintiffs to obtain significant additional damages from the RBC entities. The school districts are continuing their lawsuit against RBC, and we are pursuing claims against the RBC entities 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 our company and Stifel for civil conspiracy and conspiracy to injure its business based upon the settlement by our company and Stifel with the school districts and pursuit of claims against the RBC entities. We moved to dismiss RBC’s claims against us that are based on the settlement agreement with the school districts. The Motion to Dismiss was denied by the court, and we have filed our Answer to 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. The bonds were issued by the Lake of the Torches Economic Development Corporation (“EDC”) in connection with certain new financing for the construction of a proposed new casino, as well as refinancing of indebtedness involving Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (the “Tribe”). In 2009, Saybrook Tax Exempt Investors LLC, a qualified institutional buyer and the sole bondholder through its special purpose vehicle LDF Acquisition LLC (collectively, “Saybrook”), and Wells Fargo Bank, NA (“Wells Fargo”), indenture trustee for the bonds, brought an action in a Wisconsin federal court against EDC and the Tribe to enforce the bonds after a default by EDC. Our company was not named as a party in that action. In the 2009 action, EDC was successful in its assertion that the bond indenture was void as an unapproved “management contract” under National Indian Gaming Commission regulations, and that accordingly the Tribe’s waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the indenture was void. Although the Wisconsin federal court dismissed the entire 2009 action, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals modified the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings as to enforceability of the bond documents other than the bond indenture against EDC. On January 16, 2012, after the remand from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Saybrook filed a new action in Wisconsin state court naming our company and Stifel as defendants with respect to Stifels’ role as initial purchaser. Saybrook also named as defendants: the Tribe, EDC, and the law firm of Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. (“G&K”) which served as both issuer’s counsel and bond counsel in the transaction. The Wisconsin state-court action seeks to enforce the bonds against EDC and the Tribe and also asserts claims against the defendants based on alleged misrepresentations about the enforceability of the indenture and the bonds and the waiver of sovereign immunity by EDC and the Tribe. In April 2012 Saybrook dismissed the 2009 federal action and filed a new action in Wisconsin federal court alleging nearly identical claims against the same defendants named in the Wisconsin state court action. The parties agreed to stay the state court action until the federal court ruled on whether it had jurisdiction over the 2012 federal action, and in April 2013 the federal court determined it did not have jurisdiction over the action. That decision by the federal court reactivated the Wisconsin state court action filed in 2012. As plaintiff in the state court action, Saybrook alleges that G&K represented in various legal opinions issued in the transaction, as well as in other documents associated with the transaction, that (i) the bonds and indenture were legally enforceable obligations of EDC and (ii) EDC’s waivers of sovereign immunity were valid. The claims asserted against us are 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 the Tribe’s waiver of its sovereign immunity. To the extent EDC does not fully perform its obligations to Saybrook pursuant to the bonds, Saybrook seeks a judgment for rescission, restitutionary damages, including the amounts paid by Saybrook for the bonds, and costs; alternatively, Saybrook seeks to recover damages, costs and attorneys’ fees from us. After the federal court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the 2012 federal court action and with the state court action reactivated, on April 25, 2013 the Tribe and EDC filed a new lawsuit against Saybrook, our company, Stifel, G&K, and Wells Fargo in the Lac du Flambeau Tribal Court. The Tribal Court action seeks a declaratory judgment that all of the bond documents are void. This new lawsuit created a jurisdictional conflict between the Tribal Court and the Wisconsin state court that may be resolved by those courts or by the Federal Court in the Federal Action described below. We filed a Motion to Dismiss the Tribal Court action, which was denied on August 27, 2013, and we have filed our Answer to the lawsuit in the Tribal Court. On April 29, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims alleged against our company and Stifel brought by Saybrook in the state court action. That Motion was denied by the State Court, and we have answered the Complaint and filed cross claims against the Tribe and G&K in the State Court. On May 24, 2013 we, together with Saybrook, Wells Fargo and G&K, filed an action in a Wisconsin federal court (the “Federal Action” seeking to enjoin the Tribal Court action. The Tribe and EDC (the “Tribal Parties”) have filed a motion to dismiss or stay the Federal Action. The Tribal Parties’ motion to dismiss or stay was denied on October 29, 2013. The Tribe appealed the U.S. District Court’s denial of the Motion to Dismiss to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, but the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction on January 13, 2014. The District Court in the Federal Action has scheduled a hearing for March 14, 2014 on our motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the Tribal Court action. Meanwhile, the Tribal Court action and the State Court action were stayed during the pendency of the Tribe’s appeal to the Seventh Circuit, but the stays of those actions expire on February 12, 2014. 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 and the procedural attempt to move the litigation to the Lac du Flambeau Tribal Court. Lac Courte Oreilles Tribal Lawsuit On December 13, 2012, the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin (the “Tribe”) filed a civil lawsuit against Stifel in the Tribe’s Tribal Court (the “Tribal Lawsuit”). In December 2006, the Tribe issued two series of taxable municipal bonds as a means of raising revenue to fund various projects (the “2006 Bond Transaction”), including the refinancing of two series of bonds the Tribe issued in 2003. The Complaint alleges that we undertook to advise the Tribe regarding its financing options in 2006 but failed to disclose certain information before the 2006 Bond Transaction. On February 19, 2013 we filed a declaratory judgment action in a Wisconsin federal court seeking to establish that the Tribal Court lacks jurisdiction over the Tribal Lawsuit (the “Federal Action”). On February 20, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the Tribal Lawsuit, challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribal Court, which motion was denied by the Tribal Court. The Tribe filed a motion to dismiss the Federal Action. Shortly thereafter, the Tribe agreed to withdraw its motion to dismiss the Federal Action and agreed to stay the Tribal Lawsuit pending a determination by the Wisconsin federal court as to whether the Tribal Court has jurisdiction over the claims. Basic discovery was taken in the Federal Action, and we filed a summary judgment motion with the U.S. District Court, asking the court for a determination that the Tribal Court does not have jurisdiction over the claims brought by the Tribe. The summary judgment motion has been fully briefed, and we are awaiting a ruling by the U.S. District Court. In the event the court does not grant summary judgment a court trial is scheduled for June 23, 2014 to determine whether the Tribal Court has jurisdiction over the claims brought by the Tribe. 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 defenses to the Tribe’s claims and we intend to vigorously defend the allegations. Stetson Oil & Gas Ltd. Matter In October 2008, Stetson Oil & Gas Ltd. named Thomas Weisel Partners Canada, Inc. (n/k/a Stifel Nicolaus Canada, Inc.) as a defendant in a statement of claim filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. On March 1, 2013, Stifel Nicolaus Canada received an adverse decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that it had breached an engagement letter with Stetson, dated July 13, 2008. The decision awarded Stetson approximately $16.0 million plus interest and costs incurred by Stetson in connection with the litigation. Stifel Nicolaus Canada disagrees with the Court’s decision and is appealing that decision. Stifel Nicolaus Canada believes it has adequate reserves for what it believes will be the ultimate resolution of this matter.

NOTE 20 – 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 the 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”). These transactions are described in more detail below in connection with the civil lawsuit filed by the school districts. 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. On October 31, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. The District Court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss, and as a result the SEC has amended its complaint. We answered, denied the substantive allegations of the amended complaint and asserted various affirmative defenses. 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.

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. (“RBC”), and certain other RBC entities (collectively the “RBC entities”) 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. As we previously disclosed, we entered into a settlement of the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against our company and Stifel in March, 2012. The settlement provides the potential for the Plaintiffs to obtain significant additional damages from the RBC entities. The school districts are continuing their lawsuit against RBC, and we are pursuing claims against the RBC entities 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 our company and Stifel for civil conspiracy and conspiracy to injure its business based upon the settlement by our company and Stifel with the school districts and pursuit of claims against the RBC entities. We moved to dismiss RBC’s claims against us that are based on the settlement agreement with the school districts. The Motion to Dismiss was denied by the court, and we have filed our Answer to 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. The bonds were issued by the Lake of the Torches Economic Development Corporation (“EDC”) in connection with certain new financing for the construction of a proposed new casino, as well as refinancing of indebtedness involving Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (the “Tribe”). In 2009, Saybrook Tax Exempt Investors LLC, a qualified institutional buyer and the sole bondholder through its special purpose vehicle LDF Acquisition LLC (collectively, “Saybrook”), and Wells Fargo Bank, NA (“Wells Fargo”), indenture trustee for the bonds, brought an action in a Wisconsin federal court against EDC and the Tribe to enforce the bonds after a default by EDC. Our company was not named as a party in that action. In the 2009 action, EDC was successful in its assertion that the bond indenture was void as an unapproved “management contract” under National Indian Gaming Commission regulations, and that accordingly the Tribe’s waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the indenture was void. Although the Wisconsin federal court dismissed the entire 2009 action, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals modified the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings as to enforceability of the bond documents other than the bond indenture against EDC.

On January 16, 2012, after the remand from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Saybrook filed a new action in Wisconsin state court naming our company and Stifel as defendants with respect to Stifels’ role as initial purchaser. Saybrook also named as defendants: the Tribe, EDC, and the law firm of Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. (“G&K”) which served as both issuer’s counsel and bond counsel in the transaction. The Wisconsin state-court action seeks to enforce the bonds against EDC and the Tribe and also asserts claims against the defendants based on alleged misrepresentations about the enforceability of the indenture and the bonds and the waiver of sovereign immunity by EDC and the Tribe. In April 2012 Saybrook dismissed the 2009 federal action and filed a new action in Wisconsin federal court alleging nearly identical claims against the same defendants named in the Wisconsin state court action. The parties agreed to stay the state court action until the federal court ruled on whether it had jurisdiction over the 2012 federal action, and in April 2013 the federal court determined it did not have jurisdiction over the action. That decision by the federal court reactivated the Wisconsin state court action filed in 2012.

As plaintiff in the state court action, Saybrook alleges that G&K represented in various legal opinions issued in the transaction, as well as in other documents associated with the transaction, that (i) the bonds and indenture were legally enforceable obligations of EDC and (ii) EDC’s waivers of sovereign immunity were valid. The claims asserted against us are 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 the Tribe’s waiver of its sovereign immunity. To the extent EDC does not fully perform its obligations to Saybrook pursuant to the bonds, Saybrook seeks a judgment for rescission, restitutionary damages, including the amounts paid by Saybrook for the bonds, and costs; alternatively, Saybrook seeks to recover damages, costs and attorneys’ fees from us.

After the federal court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the 2012 federal court action and with the state court action reactivated, on April 25, 2013 the Tribe and EDC filed a new lawsuit against Saybrook, our company, Stifel, G&K, and Wells Fargo in the Lac du Flambeau Tribal Court. The Tribal Court action seeks a declaratory judgment that all of the bond documents are void. This new lawsuit created a jurisdictional conflict between the Tribal Court and the Wisconsin state court that may be resolved by those courts or by the Federal Court in the Federal Action described below. We filed a Motion to Dismiss the Tribal Court action, which was denied on August 27, 2013, and we have filed our Answer to the lawsuit in the Tribal Court. On April 29, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims alleged against our company and Stifel brought by Saybrook in the state court action. That Motion was denied by the State Court, and we have answered the Complaint and filed cross claims against the Tribe and G&K in the State Court.

On May 24, 2013 we, together with Saybrook, Wells Fargo and G&K, filed an action in a Wisconsin federal court (the “Federal Action” seeking to enjoin the Tribal Court action. The Tribe and EDC (the “Tribal Parties”) have filed a motion to dismiss or stay the Federal Action. The Tribal Parties’ motion to dismiss or stay was denied on October 29, 2013. The Tribe appealed the U.S. District Court’s denial of the Motion to Dismiss to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, but the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction on January 13, 2014. The District Court in the Federal Action has scheduled a hearing for March 14, 2014 on our motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the Tribal Court action. Meanwhile, the Tribal Court action and the State Court action were stayed during the pendency of the Tribe’s appeal to the Seventh Circuit, but the stays of those actions expire on February 12, 2014. 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 and the procedural attempt to move the litigation to the Lac du Flambeau Tribal Court.

Lac Courte Oreilles Tribal Lawsuit

On December 13, 2012, the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin (the “Tribe”) filed a civil lawsuit against Stifel in the Tribe’s Tribal Court (the “Tribal Lawsuit”). In December 2006, the Tribe issued two series of taxable municipal bonds as a means of raising revenue to fund various projects (the “2006 Bond Transaction”), including the refinancing of two series of bonds the Tribe issued in 2003. The Complaint alleges that we undertook to advise the Tribe regarding its financing options in 2006 but failed to disclose certain information before the 2006 Bond Transaction. On February 19, 2013 we filed a declaratory judgment action in a Wisconsin federal court seeking to establish that the Tribal Court lacks jurisdiction over the Tribal Lawsuit (the “Federal Action”). On February 20, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the Tribal Lawsuit, challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribal Court, which motion was denied by the Tribal Court. The Tribe filed a motion to dismiss the Federal Action. Shortly thereafter, the Tribe agreed to withdraw its motion to dismiss the Federal Action and agreed to stay the Tribal Lawsuit pending a determination by the Wisconsin federal court as to whether the Tribal Court has jurisdiction over the claims. Basic discovery was taken in the Federal Action, and we filed a summary judgment motion with the U.S. District Court, asking the court for a determination that the Tribal Court does not have jurisdiction over the claims brought by the Tribe. The summary judgment motion has been fully briefed, and we are awaiting a ruling by the U.S. District Court. In the event the court does not grant summary judgment a court trial is scheduled for June 23, 2014 to determine whether the Tribal Court has jurisdiction over the claims brought by the Tribe. 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 defenses to the Tribe’s claims and we intend to vigorously defend the allegations.

Stetson Oil & Gas Ltd. Matter

In October 2008, Stetson Oil & Gas Ltd. named Thomas Weisel Partners Canada, Inc. (n/k/a Stifel Nicolaus Canada, Inc.) as a defendant in a statement of claim filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. On March 1, 2013, Stifel Nicolaus Canada received an adverse decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that it had breached an engagement letter with Stetson, dated July 13, 2008. The decision awarded Stetson approximately $16.0 million plus interest and costs incurred by Stetson in connection with the litigation. Stifel Nicolaus Canada disagrees with the Court’s decision and is appealing that decision. Stifel Nicolaus Canada believes it has adequate reserves for what it believes will be the ultimate resolution of this matter.