Fed Limits Wells Fargo Growth, Demands Governance Changes
Federal regulators have slammed Wells Fargo with an unprecedented enforcement action.
February 05, 2018 at 05:33 PM
4 minute read
Lawyers and compliance officers at embattled Wells Fargo & Co. are hustling this week to prove that the bank and its board of directors are prepared to manage risks across its divisions, after federal regulators late Friday slapped the bank with an unprecedented enforcement action.
The board of governors of the Federal Reserve System imposed an asset freeze, in the form of a cease and desist consent order, that limits the San Francisco-based bank's growth to its December 2017 level. In effect, the order halts most lending.
“We cannot tolerate pervasive and persistent misconduct,” Fed chairwoman Janet Yellen said in a statement on her last day in the post. “The enforcement action we are taking today will ensure that Wells Fargo will not expand until it is able to do so safely and with the protections needed to manage all of its risks and protect its customers.”
Yellen described the order as unique and tougher than Fed penalties imposed against other banks, but she called it appropriate given the pervasiveness and persistence of the problems at Wells Fargo.
Timothy Sloan, Wells Fargo's president and chief executive officer, said in a statement, “We take this order seriously and are focused on addressing all of the Federal Reserve's concerns. It is important to note that the consent order is not related to any new matters.”
The Fed required each current director to sign the cease and desist action, and sent a copy to Wells Fargo general counsel Allen Parker.
The order also:
• Demanded that the board of directors play a stronger role in controlling risk and overseeing bank management. Wells Fargo consented to replace four more directors—three by April, and one by year's end. While the order called on the bank to do more to improve the board's governance, it did not explicitly require replacing more directors.
• Gave the bank 60 days to detail what it has done and plans to do to improve both the board's governance oversight, and the company's compliance and operational risk reforms.
• Imposed a sort of corporate monitor on the bank in the form of an independent third party that will review the bank's reform plans and their implementation. The review must be completed no later than Sept. 30. And the third party must be approved by the Fed.
When the third-party reviews have been completed to the satisfaction of the Fed, it will lift the limits on asset growth. But the bank said another third-party review will be conducted later to assess the “efficacy and sustainability of the risk management improvements.”
The Fed also sent critical letters to the Wells Fargo board of directors, former chairman of the board John Stumpf and former lead independent director Stephen Sanger. Neither Stumpf nor Sanger could be immediately reached for comment.
The letter to the board said the directors' risk management performance “did not meet our [the Fed's] supervisory expectations.” It was signed by Michael Gibson, director of the Fed's division of supervision and regulation.
“The board of directors must take further steps to ensure that senior management establishes and maintains an effective risk management structure that has sufficient stature, authority and resources; is independent of business lines; and is commensurate with the firm's size, complexity and risk profile,” the letter continued.
Gibson's letter to Stumpf said, “There were many pervasive and serious compliance and conduct failures ongoing during your tenure as chair.”
The letter said Stumpf did not give the directors a full report on the 3.5 million phony bank accounts scandal, and continued to support both the sales goals that were a major cause of the problem, and the senior executives most responsible for the misconduct.
The letter to Sanger said the former lead director failed to require a robust inquiry and demand further information about the serious compliance problems that were occurring at the bank.
“Your performance in that role [independent director] is an example of ineffective oversight that is not consistent with the Federal Reserve's expectations,” it concluded.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLSU General Counsel Quits Amid Fracas Over First Amendment Rights of Law Professor
7 minute readExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Troutman Pepper, Claiming Ex-Associate's Firing Was Performance Related, Seeks Summary Judgment in Discrimination Suit
- 2Law Firm Fails to Get Punitive Damages From Ex-Client
- 3Over 700 Residents Near 2023 Derailment Sue Norfolk for More Damages
- 4Decision of the Day: Judge Sanctions Attorney for 'Frivolously' Claiming All Nine Personal Injury Categories in Motor Vehicle Case
- 5Second Judge Blocks Trump Federal Funding Freeze
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250