Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

In addition to any matters that may be specifically described in the following sections, in the normal course of our business, we have been named, from time to time, as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, arising in connection with our activities as a diversified financial services institution.

RJF and certain of its subsidiaries are subject to regular reviews and inspections by regulatory authorities and self-regulatory organizations. Reviews can result in the imposition of sanctions for regulatory violations, ranging from non-monetary censures to fines and, in serious cases, temporary or permanent suspension from conducting business, or limitations on certain business activities. In addition, regulatory agencies and self-regulatory organizations institute investigations from time to time into industry practices, which can also result in the imposition of such sanctions.

We may contest liability and/or the amount of damages, as appropriate, in each pending matter. Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by government and self-regulatory agencies has increased significantly in the financial services industry. There can be no assurance that material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or are not yet determined to be material.

For many legal and regulatory matters, we are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss as we cannot predict if, how or when such proceedings or investigations will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be. A large number of factors may contribute to this inherent unpredictability: the proceeding is in its early stages; the damages sought are unspecified, unsupported or uncertain; it is unclear whether a case brought as a class action will be allowed to proceed on that basis;

RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

the other party is seeking relief other than or in addition to compensatory damages (including, in the case of regulatory and governmental proceedings, potential fines and penalties); the matters present significant legal uncertainties; we have not engaged in settlement discussions; discovery is not complete; there are significant facts in dispute; and numerous parties are named as defendants (including where it is uncertain how liability might be shared among defendants). Subject to the foregoing, after consultation with counsel, we believe that the outcome of such litigation and regulatory proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition. However, the outcome of such litigation and proceedings could be material to our operating results and cash flows for a particular future period, depending on, among other things, our revenues or income for such period.

We may from time to time include in any descriptions of individual matters herein certain quantitative information about the plaintiff’s claim against us as alleged in the plaintiff’s pleadings or other public filings. Although this information may provide insight into the potential magnitude of a matter, it does not represent our estimate of reasonably possible loss or our judgment as to any currently appropriate accrual related thereto.

See Note 17 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding legal and regulatory matter contingencies, and refer to Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Critical accounting estimates” in the section “Loss provisions for legal and regulatory matters” of this report and Note 2 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of this Form 10-K for information on our criteria for establishing accruals.

Legal matters

Brink Complaint and Wistar Complaint

On February 17, 2015, Jyll Brink (“Brink”) filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “District Court”) under the caption Jyll Brink v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc. (the “Brink Complaint”). The Brink Complaint alleges that Brink, a former customer of RJ&A, was charged a fee in her Passport Investment Account, and that the fee included an unauthorized and undisclosed profit to RJ&A in violation of its customer agreement and applicable industry standards. The Passport Investment Account is a fee-based account in which clients pay asset-based advisory fees and certain processing fees for ongoing investment advice and monitoring of securities holdings. The Brink Complaint seeks, among other relief, damages in the amount of the difference between the actual cost of processing a trade, as alleged by Brink, and the fee charged by RJ&A. On October 19, 2018, the District Court certified a class of former and current customers of RJ&A who executed a Passport Agreement and were charged processing fees during the period between February 17, 2010 and February 17, 2015.

On February 11, 2016, Caleb Wistar (“Wistar”) and Ernest Mayeaux (“Mayeaux”) filed a putative class action complaint in the District Court under the caption Caleb Wistar and Ernest Mayeaux v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. and Raymond James Financial Services Advisors, Inc. (as subsequently amended, the “Wistar Complaint”). Similar to the Brink Complaint, the Wistar Complaint alleges that Wistar and Mayeaux, former customers of Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. (“RJFS”) and Raymond James Financial Services Advisors, Inc. (“RJFSA”), were charged a fee in RJFS and RJFSA’s Passport Investment Account and that the fee included an unauthorized and undisclosed profit to RJFS and RJFSA in violation of its customer agreement and applicable industry standards. The Wistar Complaint seeks, among other relief, damages in the amount of the difference between the actual cost of processing a trade, as alleged by Wistar and Mayeaux, and the fee charge by RJFS and RJFSA.

On April 5, 2019, the parties to the Brink Complaint and the Wistar Complaint agreed in principle to an aggregate settlement of $15 million. On October 25, 2019, the District Court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement.