Oppenheimer was at risk of having to pay as much as $440 million in a class-action lawsuit over its “cash sweeps” policies. Instead, it has opted to settle for $70 million.
Processing Content
Oppenheimer’s offer to settle, which the plaintiffs suing it have agreed to in principle, marks the first resolution of the big cash sweeps suits brought by investors over the past two years.
On Thursday, plaintiffs in a class action against Oppenheimer Holdings and its wealth management subsidiaries asked a federal judge in New York to approve the firm’s proposal to resolve their case for $70 million. The lead plaintiff in the case, the financial services firm Liberty Capital Group, sued Oppenheimer in June 2025 over allegations that it had unfairly profited by offering “minuscule” returns on uninvested cash Liberty held in a brokerage account. Federal Judge Jed Rakoff of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the case class-action status in December, allowing other plaintiffs to be added.
Oppenheimer is among roughly two dozen firms that have been sued over the past two years over their cash sweeps policies. In general, cash sweeps refers to firms’ practices of taking uninvested money sitting in clients’ brokerage accounts and moving it over to a bank to be lent out at a higher rate. In Oppenheimer’s case, the plaintiffs contended that the rate they received on their uninvested cash — sometimes as low as 0.25% — lagged far behind what the firm made for itself.
Firms make billions from ‘cash sweeps.’ Could AI take that away?
Trial date put pressure on Oppenheimer
In announcing last month its plan to settle the dispute for $70 million, Oppenheimer said it expected Liberty Capital Group would seek damages in excess of $440 million. Oppenheimer said the case has been on an “accelerated schedule” since the class-action status was granted and was set to go before a jury in June.
That would have made it the first among the current round of cash-sweeps disputes to result in a trial.
“Given the lack of precedent in other cases and the inherent risks of a jury trial where the outcome could be worse than a negotiated settlement, the Company concluded that it was in the best interests of the Company, its employees, stockholders and other stakeholders to enter into an agreement to settle the claims,” Oppenheimer said in a press release.
Representatives of Oppenheimer did not respond to requests for comment. Nor did lawyers representing the plaintiffs.
Cash sweeps: Checking the fine print on a conflict of interest
Sweeps suits ask why clients didn’t receive benefits of rising rates
In announcing its settlement, Oppenheimer noted that although it was the first firm set to go to trial over its cash sweeps policies, it was in fact one of the last to be sued. The current wave of lawsuits began in June 2024 when Morgan Stanley was sued over allegations that it “fails to secure for its brokerage and advisory customers reasonable interest rates on its customers’ cash balances.” Suits quickly followed against LPL Financial, Wells Fargo, UBS, Ameriprise, Charles Schwab and various other household-name firms.
Many of the cases make much of the fact that rising interest rates in 2022 and 2023 — when the Federal Reserve was on a bid to tame inflation — meant firms were able to lend out money at increasingly higher rates. But rather than share those increasing returns with the brokerage clients who were providing the cash, according to the suits, firms kept most of the profits for themselves.
The plaintiffs suing Oppenheimer alleged that the firm’s policy of “paying unreasonably low interest rates to Oppenheimer customers during sky-high interest rate environments breached their fiduciary duties and contractual obligations and otherwise violated New York law.” The complaint gives no indication of how Oppenheimer may have calculated its possible liability at more than $440 million.
But it does note that Oppenheimer’s returns from cash sweeps have been significant. From 2022 to 2023, for instance, income Oppenheimer derived from cash sweeps increased by more than 65% to nearly $173 million, according to the suit. That money was made on $3 billion in clients’ uninvested cash.
One sweeps suit rejected, others proceed on modified terms
So far, only one suit over firms’ cash sweeps policies has been rejected outright. In February, a federal judge in Minnesota tossed out claims brought by three U.S. Bank customers who argued they had not been treated fairly by the bank’s cash sweeps program after finding the bank had never promised to pay its clients a “reasonable” rate of interest.
Other cash sweeps suits against large wealth managers have suffered minor setbacks while still being allowed to continue in court. Last summer, separate federal judges in California partly dismissed complaints against Wells Fargo and LPL after finding the firms had no fiduciary obligations to their brokerage clients.
Similarly, a federal judge in Arizona early this year partially rejected claims from three plaintiffs that the broker-dealer giant Osaic had underpaid them on cash held in its brokerage accounts. Rather than being rejected outright, the cases against Wells Fargo, LPL and Osaic were all allowed to proceed under modified terms.
