Wells Fargo in Talks With Regulators Seeking $1B in Sanctions
The troubled bank reported in its first quarter financial results that it may be taking another big hit from regulators.
April 13, 2018 at 02:11 PM
4 minute read
Photo: Kristi Blokhin/Shutterstock.com
Federal regulators are seeking $1 billion in civil penalties from Wells Fargo & Co. for overcharging tens of thousands of customers for improper mortgage fees and unneeded insurance policies, the troubled bank said Friday.
San Francisco-based Wells Fargo reported its preliminary first quarter financial results of $5.9 billion in net income, but said the figure “may have to be revised to reflect additional accruals” for the penalty.
It acknowledged it is in talks with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency over the latest sanction, but “cannot reasonably estimate” the loss yet.
Wells Fargo added, “The CFPB and OCC have collectively offered to resolve [the matters] for an aggregate of $1 billion in civil money penalties.” That figure is believed to be a record penalty from the regulators.
Peter Gilchrist, Wells Fargo's corporate communications manager, said the bank would not comment further on the negotiations.
“At this time, we are unable to predict final resolution of the CFPB/OCC matter and cannot reasonably estimate our related loss contingency,” the bank's statement continued. “Accordingly, the preliminary financial results we report today may need to be revised to reflect additional accruals for the CFPB/OCC matter when we file our final financial statements in our quarterly report on form 10-Q with the SEC.”
Chief Executive Officer Tim Sloan said in the statement, “The efforts to build a better Wells Fargo during the quarter included continuing to improve our compliance and operational risk management programs, investing in innovative products and services that enhance the customer experience including the roll-out of our digital mortgage application and predictive banking service, and increasing the minimum hourly pay rate for U.S.- based team members.”
The potentially huge penalty would be the latest in a series of sanctions against the bank as legal and other costs associated with its regulatory problems and related lawsuits continue to hit its bottom line. In the first quarter noninterest expenses were $14.2 billion, down from $16.8 billion in the prior quarter but up 3 percent from a year ago.
Operating losses of $668 million in the first quarter were “elevated due to litigation accruals for a variety of matters, including mortgage-related regulatory investigations, sales practices and other consumer-related matters,” the bank said.
The bank's problems date back to the fall of 2016 when it announced it was paying $185 million in penalties after creating over 3.5 million fake bank accounts using customers' information without their knowledge.
In 2017 alone, Wells Fargo paid $142 million to settle a class action suit over the sham accounts, spent $108 million to settle a whistleblower suit over alleged illegal fees on veterans' loans, agreed to refund fees to 110,000 customers who were wrongly charged for mortgage rate-lock extensions and said it would return $80 million to 570,000 car loan customers who were charged for insurance they did not need. That year, the company also agreed to pay investors $3.4 million for selling them products highly likely to lose money after telling them otherwise and took a $1 billion charge for litigation costs in one quarter.
The problems since 2016 also led to a management shakeup that included a new CEO, general counsel and chief compliance officer, among others.
Back in February, Corporate Counsel reported that Wells Fargo had brought on Sarah Dahlgren, a former executive at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, as head of regulatory relations to help work with regulators on the bank's “legal and compliance makeover.”
Sloan said Friday, “I'm confident that our outstanding team will continue to transform Wells Fargo into a better, stronger company; however, we recognize that it will take time to put all of our challenges behind us.”
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
© 2024 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 AllFatal Shooting of CEO Sets Off Scramble to Reassess Executive Security
5 minute readBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readShareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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