Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 10/30/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: September 26, 2016

According to the law firm press release, Wells Fargo is a diversified financial services company that provides retail, commercial and corporate banking services, principally in the United States.

The Company has three reportable operating segments, Community Banking, Wholesale Banking, and Wealth and Investment Management. A key part of Wells Fargo's business strategy is "cross-selling," which entails selling its existing customers more retail products. Wells Fargo's execution on its cross-selling opportunities was considered central to the Company's business and growth prospects.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's true financial condition, financial performance and future prospects, including about the source of its growth in products per household and the success of its overall strategy of cross-selling its products. Specifically, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Wells Fargo's cross-selling efforts to retail customers were neither designed to meet customers' financial needs nor drive customer satisfaction, but rather were the product of a carefully designed system that resulted in the Company illegally, through forgery and other electronic means, opening millions of deposit and credit card accounts for customers without their knowledge in an effort to generate fee income for Wells Fargo and compensation rewards for Wells Fargo employees, including defendants. Wells Fargo also failed to disclose that an ongoing internal investigation had in fact determined by the beginning of the Class Period that employees in the Community Banking segment had engaged in a wide ranging scheme to inflate the Company's financial performance figures by opening millions of unauthorized deposit and credit card accounts, ultimately resulting in more than 5,000 employee terminations. As a result of defendants' false statements and/or omissions during the Class Period, Wells Fargo stock traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a high of over $58 per share and allowing certain of the defendants to sell more than $31 million worth of their own Wells Fargo stock at artificially inflated prices.

On September 8, 2016, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") imposed a fine of more than $185 million on Wells Fargo and published a Consent Order detailing the Company's fraudulent practices, which were centered on a corporate culture intent on growing its cross-selling opportunities and unlawfully and without its customers' consent opening millions of unauthorized deposit and credit card accounts. In the days following the CFPB announcement, several media outlets issued articles detailing the scandal. The complaint alleges that as a result of these revelations, between September 8, 2016 and September 16, 2016, the Company's stock price declined 9%, from a close of $49.90 per share on September 8, 2016 to a close of $45.43 per share on September 16, 2016, as information about defendants' conduct and its impact on Wells Fargo's operations reached the market.

On January 5, 2017, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on March 6.

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 #: 16-CV-05479
JUDGE: Hon. Jon S. Tigar
DATE FILED: 09/26/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/26/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/15/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 16-CV-05479
JUDGE: Hon. Jon S. Tigar
DATE FILED: 03/06/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/26/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/20/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Motley Rice LLC (Mount Pleasant)
    28 Bridgeside Boulevard, Motley Rice LLC (Mount Pleasant), SC 29464
    843.216.9000 843.216.9450 · inquiry@motleyrice.com
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
No Document Title Filing Date