Get Started for Free Contexxia identifies hard-to-find pieces of information in SEC filings. No more highlighters, no more redlining, no more poring over huge documents. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY/MN (72971) 10-Q published on May 03, 2019 at 1:02 pm
Reporting Period: Mar 30, 2019
Freddie Mac), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Home Affordable Modification Program. Customers were not actually charged the incorrect attorneys’ fees. As previously disclosed, the Company has identified customers who, as a result of these errors, were incorrectly denied a loan modification or were not offered a loan modification or repayment plan in cases where they otherwise would have qualified, as well as instances where a foreclosure was completed after the loan modification was denied or the customer was deemed ineligible to be offered a loan modification or repayment plan. The number of previously disclosed customers affected by these errors may change as a result of ongoing validation, but is not expected to change materially upon completion of this validation. The Company has contacted substantially all of the identified customers affected by these errors and has provided remediation as well as the option to pursue no-cost mediation with an independent mediator. The Company’s review of its mortgage loan modification practices is ongoing, and we are providing remediation to the extent we identify additional affected customers as a result of this review.
sovereign claims. Our United Kingdom sovereign claims arise predominantly from deposits we have placed with the Bank of England pursuant to regulatory requirements in support of our London branch. The United Kingdom officially announced its intention to leave the European Union (Brexit) on March 29, 2017, and the negotiation process leading to its departure has been extended to October 31, 2019. We continue to implement plans for Brexit. Our primary goal is to continue to serve our existing clients in the United Kingdom and the European Union as well as to continue to meet the needs of our domestic clients as they do business in the United Kingdom and the European Union. We have an existing authorized bank in Ireland and an asset management entity in Luxembourg. We are also in the process of obtaining regulatory approvals to establish a broker dealer in France. We plan to leverage these entities in order to continue to serve clients in the European Union. In addition, we are implementing actions where possible to mitigate the impact of Brexit on our supplier contracts, staffing and business operations in the European Union. For additional information on risks associated with Brexit, see the “Risk Factors” section in our 2018 Form 10-K.
discussed below, certain mortgage interest rate lock extensions. The consent orders require remediation to customers and the payment of a total of $1.0 billion in civil money penalties to the agencies. In July 2017, the Company announced a plan to remediate customers who may have been financially harmed due to issues related to automobile CPI policies purchased through a third-party vendor on their behalf. Multiple putative class action cases alleging, among other things, unfair and deceptive practices relating to these CPI policies, have been filed against the Company and consolidated into one multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Company has reached an agreement in principle to resolve the multi-district litigation pursuant to which the Company has agreed to pay, consistent with its remediation obligations under the consent orders, approximately $415 million in remediation to customers with CPI policies placed between October 15, 2005, and September 30, 2016. The settlement amount is not incremental to the Company’s remediation obligations under the consent orders, but instead encompasses those obligations, including remediation payments to date. The settlement amount is subject to change as the Company finalizes its remediation activity under the consent orders. In addition, the Company has agreed to contribute $1 million to a common fund for the class. The district court has set a preliminary approval hearing for June 3, 2019. The $415 million amount of the agreement in principle was fully accrued as of March 31, 2019. A putative class of shareholders also filed a securities fraud class action against the Company and its executive officers alleging material misstatements and omissions of CPI-related information in the Company’s public disclosures. Former team members have also alleged retaliation for raising concerns regarding automobile lending practices. In addition, the Company has identified certain issues related to the unused portion of guaranteed automobile protection (GAP) waiver or insurance agreements between the customer and dealer and, by assignment, the lender, which will result in remediation to customers in certain states. The Company is subject to a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging that customers are entitled to refunds in all states. Allegations related to the CPI and GAP programs are among the subjects of shareholder derivative lawsuits pending in federal and state court in California. The court dismissed the state court action in September 2018, but plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in November 2018. Subject to court approval, the parties to the state court action have entered into an agreement to resolve the action pursuant to which the Company will pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and undertake certain business and governance practices. These and other issues related to the origination, servicing, and collection of consumer automobile loans, including related insurance products, have also subjected the Company to formal or informal inquiries, investigations, or examinations from federal and state government agencies. In December 2018, the Company entered into an agreement with all 50 state Attorneys General and the District of Columbia to resolve an investigation into the Company’s retail sales practices, CPI and GAP, and mortgage interest rate lock matters, pursuant to which the Company paid $575 million.
RETAIL SALES PRACTICES MATTERS Federal, state, and local government agencies, including the Department of Justice, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the United States Department of Labor; state attorneys general, including the New York Attorney General; and prosecutors’ offices, as well as Congressional committees, have undertaken formal or informal inquiries, investigations or examinations arising out of certain retail sales practices of the Company that were the subject of settlements with the CFPB, the OCC, and the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney announced by the Company on September 8, 2016. These matters are at varying stages. The Company has responded, and continues to respond, to requests from a number of the foregoing. In October 2018, the Company entered into an agreement to resolve the New York Attorney General’s investigation pursuant to which the Company paid $65 million to the State of New York. In December 2018, the Company entered into an agreement with all 50 state Attorneys General and the District of Columbia to resolve an investigation into the Company’s retail sales practices, CPI and GAP, and mortgage interest rate lock matters, pursuant to which the Company paid $575 million. The Company has also engaged in preliminary and/or exploratory resolution discussions with the Department of Justice and the SEC, although there can be no assurance as to the outcome of these discussions.
April 20, 2017. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay $142 million for remediation, attorneys’ fees, and settlement fund claims administration. In the unlikely event that the $142 million settlement total is not enough to provide remediation, pay attorneys’ fees, pay settlement fund claims administration costs, and have at least $25 million left over to distribute to all class members, the Company will contribute additional funds to the settlement. In addition, in the unlikely event that the number of unauthorized accounts identified by settlement class members in the claims process and not disputed by the claims administrator exceeds plaintiffs’ 3.5 million account estimate, the Company will proportionately increase the $25 million reserve so that the ratio of reserve to unauthorized accounts is no less than what was implied by plaintiffs’ estimate at the time of the district court’s preliminary approval of the settlement in July 2017. The district court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement on June 14, 2018. Several appeals of the district court’s order granting final approval of the settlement have been filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Second, Wells Fargo shareholders brought a consolidated securities fraud class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging certain misstatements and omissions in the Company’s disclosures related to sales practices matters. The Company entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this matter pursuant to which the Company paid $480 million. The district court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement on December 20, 2018. Third, Wells Fargo shareholders have brought numerous shareholder derivative lawsuits asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims, among others, against current and former directors and officers for their alleged involvement with and failure to detect and prevent sales practices issues. These actions are currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and California state court for coordinated proceedings. An additional lawsuit asserting similar claims pending in Delaware state court has been stayed. Subject to court approval, the parties have entered into settlement agreements to resolve the shareholder derivative lawsuits pursuant to which insurance carriers will pay the Company approximately $240 million for alleged damage to the Company, and the Company will pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. Fourth, multiple employment litigation matters have been brought against Wells Fargo, including an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of 401(k) plan participants that has been dismissed and is now on appeal; a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of team members who allege that they protested sales practice misconduct and/or were terminated for not meeting sales goals that has now been dismissed, and we have entered into a framework with plaintiffs’ counsel to address individual claims that have been asserted; various wage and hour class actions brought in federal and state court in California (which have been settled), New Jersey, and Pennsylvania on behalf of non-exempt branch based team members alleging that sales pressure resulted in uncompensated overtime; and multiple single plaintiff Sarbanes-Oxley Act complaints and state law whistleblower actions filed with the United States Department of Labor or in various state courts alleging adverse employment actions for raising sales practice misconduct issues.