Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 01/04/2010 (Stipulation and order of dismissal (voluntary dismissal))

Filing Date: April 14, 2008

The original Complaint alleges that Wells Fargo violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving investors about the investment characteristics of auction rate securities and the auction market in which these securities traded. Auction rate securities are either municipal or corporate debt securities or preferred stocks which pay interest at rates set at periodic “auctions.” Auction rate securities generally have long-term maturities or no maturity dates.

The Complaint alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials and top-down management directives, Wells Fargo offered and sold auction rate securities to the public as highly liquid cash-management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money market mutual funds. According to the Complaint, holders of auction rate securities sold by Wells Fargo and others have been unable to liquidate their positions in these securities following the decision on February 13, 2008 of all major broker-dealers including Wells Fargo to “withdraw their support” for the periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on auction rates securities are set.

The Complaint alleges that Wells Fargo failed to disclose the following material facts about the auction rate securities it sold to the class: (1) the auction rate securities were not cash alternatives, like money market funds, but were instead, complex, long-term financial instruments with 30 year maturity dates, or longer; (2) the auction rate securities were only liquid at the time of sale because broker-dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability; and (3) broker-dealers routinely intervened in auctions for their own benefit, to set rates and prevent all-hold auctions and failed auctions.

On August 6, 2008, Judge Jeffrey S. White signed the Order granting the motion to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On February 10, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint. On April 20, 2009, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint.

According to the Order dated January 4, 2010, on November 18, 2009, a settlement in principle between Wells Fargo Investments LLC and the California Attorney General's office was announced, pursuant to which Wells Fargo has agreed to repurchase approximately $1.3 billion from Wells Fargo clients whose funds have been frozen in the auction rate securities market; Whereas, under the settlement agreement between Wells Fargo and the California Attorney General's office, Plaintiffs Lindell Van Dyke and Sandra Olsen may be eligible for repurchase at par value of all their Wells Fargo auction rate securities at issue in this action; Whereas, the repurchase at par value of all of the Wells Fargo auction rate securities held by the Plaintiffs Lindell Van. Dyke and Sandra Olsen will resolve the claims they have asserted in the above-captioned action; Plaintiffs Lindell Van Dyke and Sandra Olsen and Defendants Wells Fargo & Co., Wells Fargo Investments, LLC, Wells Fargo Institutional Securities, LLC, We1ls Fargo Services, LLC, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., by and through their respective counsel, Hereby Agree And Stipulate As Follows: 1. The above-captioned action shall be conditionally dismissed subject to the actual repurchase at par value of all of the Wells Fargo auction rate securities held by Plaintiffs Lindell Van Dyke and Sandra Olsen; 2. If the Wells Fargo auction rate securities held by Plaintiffs Van Dyke and Olsen are not actually repurchased at par value, then Plaintiffs shall have the right to initiate such further proceedings in this Court as they may be legally entitled to under applicable law.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Money Center Banks
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: WFC
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 08-CV-01962
JUDGE: Hon. Jeffrey S. White
DATE FILED: 04/14/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/14/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/13/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Girard Gibbs LLP (San Francisco)
    601 California Street, Suite 1400, Girard Gibbs LLP (San Francisco), CA 94108
    415.981.4800 415.981.4846 · mail@girardgibbs.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 08-CV-01962
JUDGE: Hon. Jeffrey S. White
DATE FILED: 02/10/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/14/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/13/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Girard Gibbs LLP (San Francisco)
    601 California Street, Suite 1400, Girard Gibbs LLP (San Francisco), CA 94108
    415.981.4800 415.981.4846 · mail@girardgibbs.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date