Wells Fargo Agrees to Pay NY $65M for Misleading Investors on Fake Accounts, AG Says
The penalty is part of an investigation by the state into the bank's business practices, which came under scrutiny in 2016 when federal regulators revealed employees had created more than 2 million fake accounts to meet sales targets.
October 22, 2018 at 03:57 PM
4 minute read
Wells Fargo will pay New York state $65 million after producing fraudulent statements to investors about its “cross-sell” business model, which led the bank's employees to open millions of fake accounts without customers' knowledge, Attorney General Barbara Underwood said Monday.
The penalty is part of an investigation by the state into the bank's business practices, which came under scrutiny in 2016 when federal regulators revealed employees had created more than 2 million fake accounts to meet sales targets.
Underwood's office said Monday's announcement will have no impact on its ongoing investigation into Wells Fargo over the fake accounts or other pending investigations. Underwood said in a statement that investors were misled by the bank.
“The misconduct at Wells Fargo was widespread across the bank and at every level of management—impacting both customers and investors who were misled,” Underwood said. “State securities laws are vital to protecting the hard-earned savings of working families and Main Street investors from financial fraud, and my office will continue to do what's necessary to protect the public and the integrity of our markets.”
Wells Fargo said in a statement that it did not admit liability in agreeing to the penalty, but that it is another step forward in rebuilding public trust.
“Wells Fargo did not admit liability, and we believe that putting this matter behind us is in the best interest of all of our stakeholders, including customers. The settlement costs have been previously accrued,” the bank said. “We are making strong progress in our work to rebuild trust, and this represents another step forward.”
According to Underwood's office, Wells Fargo told investors that it would be able to increase revenues and better serve customers by “cross-selling.” The practice refers to selling new financial products or services to an already existing customer. The bank regularly reported cross-selling metrics to investors that supposedly showed success in the practice, according to Underwood's office.
The bank did not, however, tell investors that the success of its cross-selling strategy came from fraudulent sales practices, driven by unrealistic sales goals, Underwood's office said. Employees who met the targets were apparently eligible for promotions and bonuses while those who did not were pressured to do more and, in some cases, fired.
Former Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf told Congress that he became aware of the misconduct as early as 2013. Investors in New York lost millions of dollars when the bank announced the fraudulent practices in 2016, Underwood's office said.
The $65 million penalty is on top of a $142 million class action settlement for customer remediation and settlement expenses Wells Fargo entered into over the fraudulent accounts last year. The bank was separately fined $1 billion by federal regulators last year for signing up and charging customers for car insurance they didn't need and imposing unfair fees on mortgage borrowers.
The company said on its website that it has taken several steps since 2016 to reform how it does business. It no longer tracks metrics on cross-selling and does not base employee performance on the practice. It has also pledged to improve risk management, oversight of its business practices, and compliance with state and federal regulations.
Senior Enforcement Counsel Hannah Flamenbaum and Assistant Attorneys General Melissa Gable and Amita Singh of Underwood's Investor Protection Bureau handled the agreement announced Monday. The office is uniquely positioned to handle such disputes under the Martin Act, which allows the state attorney general to investigate cases of suspected securities fraud.
READ MORE:
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 AllAfter 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-87
- 2The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 3Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 4Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 5Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
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