Phila.'s Discriminatory Lending Suit Against Wells Fargo Heads to Mediation
The lawsuit Philadelphia filed against Wells Fargo over its allegedly discriminatory lending practices has been put on hold as the parties work to see if they can come to an out-of-court agreement.
December 13, 2018 at 03:45 PM
3 minute read
The lawsuit Philadelphia filed against Wells Fargo over its allegedly discriminatory lending practices has been put on hold as the parties work to see if they can come to an out-of-court agreement.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stayed the lawsuit City of Philadelphia v. Wells Fargo pending mediation. According to Brody's order, the case is set to begin mediation before retired magistrate Judge Diane Welsh next month.
Philadelphia's lawsuit was the first that a city has lodged against a financial institution since the 2016 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bank of America v. City of Miami established that municipalities have standing to sue banks over allegedly discriminatory lending practices.
Although Philadelphia's suit was the first to go forward since the Bank of America ruling, it was not the first municipality to sue a financial institution for allegedly discriminatory lending practices. Philadelphia's complaint noted that Baltimore and Memphis brought similar claims against Wells Fargo, as have the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Reserve Bank. Several media reports have said an attorney arguing on behalf of Miami before the Supreme Court said Baltimore and Memphis each settled their claims for less than $10 million.
Philadelphia filed its suit in May 2017, focusing on lending practices that occurred between 2004 and 2014. The city contends that the allegedly discriminatory conduct caused high foreclosure rates in minority neighborhoods and lowered tax revenues that the city otherwise would have collected. According to the city's complaint, during those 10 years Wells Fargo issued more than 1,000 discriminatory high-cost or high-risk loans to minority borrowers. The loans were clustered in neighborhoods in the north, west and southwest areas of the city that have high poverty rates and significant African-American and Hispanic populations, the complaint said.
Wells Fargo, however, fought back in a motion to dismiss, contending that the city's arguments were too much of a stretch to proceed and would require six steps to establish a connection between any allegedly discriminatory loans and the city's claimed injuries.
In August a discovery dispute also emerged, which had not been entirely resolved as of late last month. That dispute focused on whether Wells Fargo had to turn over certain internal and compliance audits that the city demanded.
According to the August filing, the city wanted the court to compel all audits and audit-related documents related to the company's compliance with the federal Fair Housing Act when it comes to underwriting, purchasing, pricing or selling loans to minority residents of Philadelphia.
In a filing from Nov. 21, the city pointed to a recent announcement that the lending giant would pay $65 million following an investigation by the New York attorney general for misleading investors about its cross-selling business model.
“The AG's investigation further demonstrates relevance of the materials the city is seeking with respect to the adequacy of the bank's internal control as relates to mortgage lending and whether the bank's compensation and incentive structure encouraged cross-selling of discriminatory mortgages,” the city said in the filing.
Duane Morris attorney Alexander Bono is representing Wells Fargo and Berger Montague attorney Sherrie Savett is representing Philadelphia.
A spokesman for Wells Fargo confirmed that mediation will start in January, but declined to comment further. A spokesman for the city Law Department did not return a message seeking comment.
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 AllPhila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
3 minute read'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Bar Report - Dec. 23
- 2Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 3The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 4Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 5For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
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