Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 10/19/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: February 16, 2018

Wells Fargo is a diversified financial services company providing banking, insurance, investments, mortgage, leasing, credit cards, and consumer finance. The Company operates through physical stores, the internet, and other distribution channels worldwide.

According to the law firm press release, on September 8, 2016, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published a Consent Order with a Stipulation to its entry signed by the Executive Vice President of Wells Fargo Bank, detailing fraudulent practices at the Company, 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, and imposing a fine of more than $185 million.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Wells Fargo had charged more than 800,000 customers for unneeded auto insurance, the expense of which pushed approximately 274,000 Wells Fargo customers into delinquency and resulted in almost 25,000 vehicle repossessions; (ii) the foregoing conduct, when it came to light, would foreseeably subject Wells Fargo to heightened regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement actions; and (iii) as a result, Wells Fargo's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

The Complaint was re-filed on February 16, 2018, due to a filing error in the initial Complaint.

On June 20, 2018, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel and transferring the case to the Northern District of California under Docket 18-CV-03948. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated Complaint on August 31. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated Complaint on November 2. On January 10, 2020, the Court issued an Order partially granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.


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


Ticker Symbol: WTC
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 18-CV-01318
JUDGE: Hon. Edgardo Ramos
DATE FILED: 02/16/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/27/2017
  1. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 18-CV-03948
JUDGE: Hon. Edgardo Ramos
DATE FILED: 08/31/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/03/2017
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available