Wells Fargo News

Wells Fargo faces dozens of lawsuits from angry customers over its fake accounts scandal, but it is reportedly seeking to push those disputes into arbitration.

Bloomberg News reports the bank has filed a motion in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City to keep one particular lawsuit from getting to court. In the motion, Wells Fargo says customers agreed to resolve disputes out of court when they opened their accounts.

The lawsuits are the result of Wells Fargo's actions, opening millions of bank and credit card accounts in customers' names without their knowledge or permission. At the time, the bank was engaged in a sales strategy known as “cross-marketing,” where customers with one type of account were encouraged to open another type, increasing the amount of fees flowing to the bank.

Went beyond convincing

The bank offered incentives to employees who were able to convince customers with bank accounts to open credit card accounts, and vice-versa. Federal regulators charged Wells Fargo went beyond trying to convince customers to open new accounts and simply opened the accounts for them without their knowledge. The bank fired 5,300 employees and paid $185 million in fines. It's CEO, John Stumpf, after being raked over the coals by Congressional committees, took early retirement.

Bloomberg reports the motion, filed in the lawsuit brought by 80 Wells Fargo customers, points out that the arbitration clause has already been validated in another lawsuit brought in California.

Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution favored by large corporations with lots of customers. It keeps disputes out of court and, while saving in legal fees, often results in more favorable rulings. Besides banks, telecommunications companies usually require their customers to agree to arbitration.

Considering a ban

A year ago, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) said it was considering proposed rules that would ban consumer financial companies from using “free pass” arbitration clauses.

With this free pass, CFPB said companies can sidestep the legal system, avoid big refunds, and continue to pursue profitable practices that may violate the law and harm countless consumers.

“Consumers should not be asked to sign away their legal rights when they open a bank account or credit card,” CFPB Director Richard Cordray said at the time.

Cordray said corporations are using the arbitration clause as a free pass to sidestep the courts and his agency would consider banning arbitration clauses that block group lawsuits.

Everyone denies having quotas. The police insist they don't but ask yourself how often you've gotten tickets late in the month. Telephone solicitors say they don't have quotas but how often have you been signed up for something you never heard of?

David E. Douglas says Wells Fargo Bank is up to the same shenanigans. In a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Douglas charges that employees of three different Wells Fargo branches opened new accounts in his name and his business' name without his knowledge.

Douglas says branch employees are under so much pressure to sign up new customers that they use the information they already have on existing customers to open phony new accounts. Douglas claims the individual defendants opened at least eight accounts in his name and forged his signature on the applications without his knowledge, Courthouse News Service reported.

Given the demands Wells Fargo makes on its employees, it "should have known that its employees and bank managers routinely use the account information, date of birth, and Social Security and taxpayer identification numbers of defendant Wells Fargo's existing bank customers to use the existing bank customers' money to open additional accounts in the existing customers' names without their knowledge or consent and by forging the signature of their existing customers without their knowledge or consent to open said additional accounts, including purported business accounts for businesses that do not exist," Douglas' suit charges.

Even after being alerted to the issue, Wells Fargo did nothing, Douglas alleges. He says in the suit that when he found out about the unauthorized accounts, he contacted a fraud investigator at the bank's Beverly Hills branch. She assured him that Wells Fargo would "conduct a thorough investigation and make him whole," but he never heard back from her or anyone else at the bank, so he was forced to sue, Douglas says in the complaint.

The Justice Department has sued Wells Fargo, the nation's largest mortgage lender, accusing it of "reckless" lending and sticking the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) with the tab for loans that went bad.

Prosecutors say they are seeking "hundreds of millions of dollars" in damages on behalf of the FHA.  The complaint, filed in New York City, alleges that for more than a decade, Wells Fargo engaged in "reckless" underwriting of government-backed loans.

“As the complaint alleges, yet another major bank has engaged in a longstanding and reckless trifecta of deficient training, deficient underwriting and deficient disclosure, all while relying on the convenient backstop of government insurance," Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said. "As also alleged, Wells Fargo’s bonus incentive plan – rewarding employees based on the sheer number of loans approved – was an accelerant to a fire already burning, as quality repeatedly took a back seat to quantity.

"What’s more, even after concerns were raised internally at the bank, Wells Fargo began self-reporting bad loans in a significant way, as required, only after this Office issued a subpoena last year. Now a jury will have to weigh the facts to determine the bank’s liability and the scope of the damages it must pay,” Bharara said. 

At issue are more than 100,000 FHA-backed loans. Wells Fargo said the loans met federal lending guidelines when half of them didn't, the government alleges.

“As the complaint alleges, yet another major bank has engaged in a longstanding and reckless trifecta of deficient training, deficient underwriting and deficient disclosure, all while relying on the convenient backstop of government insurance,” U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in a prepared statement.

The Justice Department's case is similar to those filed earlier against Citigroup, Deutsche Bank and other lenders. Deutsche Bank has agreed to pay $202 million and Citigroup is paying $290 million. A suit against Allied Home Mortgage is still pending. Bank of America has said it reached an agreement to resolve claims for FHA-insured loans made by Countrywide Mortgage.

In July, Wells Fargo paid $125 million and set up a $50 million assistance fund to settle federal allegations that it discriminated against minority borrowers.

A class action lawsuit alleges that lending giant Wells Fargo profited off an unholy scheme with an appraiser owned by Wells Fargos parent company.

According to the suit, Wells Fargo requires borrowers to use Rels Valuation, an appraisal service owned by the same company that controls Wells Fargo. In turn, Rels, which uses third-party appraisers to perform the work, forces these vendors to come back with an appraisal that meets Wells Fargos expectations, and pays the appraisers well below market value for their services.

Despite the bargain that Wells Fargo receives on the appraisals, it continues to charge consumers the full amount for the service, and pockets the difference.

As described in the suit, Wells Fargos alleged scheme is exceedingly clever and complex. According to the suit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Wells Fargo pressures subcontracting appraisers to report back with a price that will allow Wells Fargo to underwrite the loan without significant obstacles, regardless of whether the figure is accurate.

Additionally, Wells Fargo allegedly informs the appraiser that they will pay them drastically less than the going market rate for their services. If the appraiser refuses to comply with either of these conditions, they are placed on Wells Fargos exclusion list, and are not considered for future appraisals.

Because of Wells Fargos giant stature — it is the number one mortgage lender in the nation — refusal to acquiesce in these demands could mean a drastic drop in appraisers business and significant damage to their reputation.

Under the rules laid out in the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), no company is allowed to require consumers to use another company, as such arrangements practically invite the kind of price gauging alleged here. However, the Act makes an exception for lenders, since appraisals are ostensibly done to protect their interests, and allowing them to choose a trusted appraiser helps further this purpose.

Under RESPA, however, when a lender requires the use of a certain appraiser, they must inform the consumer both of the relationship and of the amount they were charged by the appraiser. According to the suit, Wells Fargo sometimes disclosed the relationship between themselves and Rels, but never disclosed the price they paid for the appraisals, giving consumers no indication that they were paying as much as twice what Wells Fargo had for the service.

The suit estimates that, given Wells Fargos size and influence, tens or even hundreds of thousands of homeowners have been victimized by the scheme.

It brings claims under both RESPA and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), since the scheme was allegedly carried out across state lines via U.S. mail and interstate wire facilities. The suit also alleges unjust enrichment against Rels and breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition against Wells Fargo.

Reader response

I would like to applaud Jon Hood for his bravery in telling the truth. I would also like to thank whatever Attorney(s) are involved and to lend support for their cause. Our business as honest, ethical appraisers has been derailed by these greedy companies. Did you know the CEO for Wells sat on the recent HVCC comittee to determine policy?

RC, Colorado Springs, CO

The city of Los Angeles has filed suit against Wells Fargo Bank, alleging that the bank's policies and high-pressure sales quotas encouraged employees to engage in “unfair, unlawful and fraudulent conduct” against customers.

L.A. Prosecutor Mike Feuer filed the suit in state court on Monday, alleging that, among other things, employees would misuse customers' confidential information, open accounts in customers' names without authorization, often failed to close those accounts when the customers demanded it, and sometimes even took money out of authorized client accounts to pay for those unauthorized fees.

“The result is that Wells Fargo has generated a virtual fee-generating machine, through which its customers are harmed, its employees take the blame, and Wells Fargo reaps the profit,” the lawsuit says.

Furthermore, “On the rare occasions when Wells Fargo did take action against its employees for unethical sales conduct, Wells Fargo further victimized its customers by failing to inform them of the breaches, refund fees they were owed, or otherwise remedy the injuries that Wells Fargo and its bankers have caused.”

Gaming

The lawsuit also claims that Wells Fargo bankers engaged in a practice known as “gaming” -- opening unauthorized accounts in customers' names, making unauthorized withdrawals from customers' authorized accounts to pay the fees on the unauthorized ones, and reporting customers to collections and/or posting “derogatory information” in the customers' credit reports.

Wells Fargo responded with a statement saying it would fight those allegations in court, and that “Wells Fargo's culture is focused on the best interests of its customers and creating a supportive, caring and ethical environment for our team members. This includes training, audits and processes that work together to support our Vision & Values and our commitment to customers receiving only the products and services they need and will benefit from.”

Yet many consumers — from all over the country, not just California — have written reviews that sound remarkably similar to some of the allegations mentioned in Feuer's lawsuit. Consider this sampling of complaints we got about Wells Fargo, just during the month of April 2015. Dan from Bozeman, Montana wrote us on April 1 to say:

Over the past several years, I have become more and more frustrated with Wells Fargo as a whole. I have kept my personal and business bank accounts with Wells Fargo and just about every month they find a way to charge some kind of fee for some random reason. Their accounts are set up with such complex sets of terms and conditions that you cannot possibly keep track of all of them. If you don't watch your accounts daily - you can be assured they will be siphoning money. The bankers will always assure you that your accounts are free.. just know that they are not.

"Misled in the beginning"

Tawnya from Alexandria, Alabama went into more detail about those fees. She visited her local Wells Fargo branch seeking “ANOTHER temporary check card since the company failed to send me the new card, although I did receive an email [assuring me] it was sent out.” While she spoke to one employee about her check-card problems, another one overheard her mention that she had an at-home business, and encouraged her to open a business savings account.

He quickly went over the benefits and had me transfer $150 from my checking on that day, explaining to me $150 must be deposited into the business savings monthly. He did not specify it had to be an automatic transfer set up for a specific date.... [the following month] I made a deposit of $150 in the Lenlock, AL branch and no worries, until I see they took out a $14 service charge from my business checking and $6 from my business savings. As I looked further, there was another $6 charge to my business savings in Feb. … Not only was I charged a $5 service fee for years to have a checking account after the Wachovia/Wells Fargo takeover, but now I am getting service fees for trying to build a business when I was mislead in the beginning by the representative ….

John from Chicago said that “Wells Fargo small business account reps gave me a personal credit card I did not ask for and charged me fees for that.”

But Octavia from New Jersey offered a view from the employees' side of the table:

.... [O]ur finances hit the toilet when my husband switched jobs and began working for Wells. The amount of stress and pressure that he had to endure to sell and open accounts was too much for him. ... My husband has since left but reiterates that it is the worst to its customers and employees alike!

The online video that insults the prophet Muhammad has sparked a crisis in the Middle East and isn't doing much to make life easier for banking customers in the U.S. either.

Cyber attacks blocked Wells Fargo's site in much of the country today and U.S. Bancorp and PNC are said to be next on the list.  Bank of America, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase were all hit earlier. 

The disruptions were caused by what are known as denial of service attacks, in which massive numbers of computers hit sites simultaneously, flooding them with requests that cause the sites to either go down or operate at a crawl.

A group calling itself the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Cyber Fighters has claimed responsibility for the attacks and says they will continue until that controversial video is taken down.

The Wells Fargo site was completely unreachable for much of today, creating cries of anguish and outrage from many of its 21 million online customers.

Many customers have blamed the banks for the attacks, although experts say there is little that anyone can do to defend against massive distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks, so called because they use thousands of computers all around the world to mount simultaneous attacks that overwhelm not just the targeted sites but, in many cases, other sites hosted within the same data centers.

Wells Fargo issued a statement apologizing for the outage. 

"We are working to quickly resolve this issue. Customers can still access their accounts through our ATMs, stores and by phone," the bank said in a statement.

If you’ve ever called a customer service line, then you may be all too familiar with the initial spiel or automated message that you hear before talking to a human: “This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes.”

While companies certainly do use these recordings for training purposes, the statement is also important because it provides a warning for consumers. Wells Fargo may be learning that lesson the hard way. The company has been fined $8.5 million for violating California’s state law which requires that all companies disclose that a call is being recorded.

The suit was filed back in February when the state accused Wells Fargo of violating sections 632 and 632.7 of its penal code. The lion’s share of the $8.5 million will be split up amongst five California counties, with $7.6 million going to Los Angeles, Riverside, Venture, Alameda, and San Diego. Wells Fargo will also pay $250,000 to two organizations – the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and the Consumer Protection Prosecution Trust Fund.

Victory for consumer privacy

The state considers the suit a victory for consumer privacy, saying that it is more important than ever that consumers feel safe in an increasingly technological world.

“This settlement holds Wells Fargo accountable for violating the privacy of its customers by recording calls without providing adequate notification, and ensures that the bank makes the changes necessary to protect the privacy of its customers,” said California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

In addition to the payment, Wells Fargo has stated that it will create an internal compliance program so that calls are no longer recorded without consent. 

Wells Fargo has agreed to settle a West Virginia lawsuit that dates all the way back to 2005. The company will pay $8 million to settle allegations made against Acordia, an insurance broker that was acquired by Wells Fargo in 2001.

The suit was originally filed by then-West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw; it charged Acordia with favoring certain insurance carriers over others to the detriment of consumers. The lawsuit stated consumers were directed towards choosing these carriers “regardless of whether the insurers provided the best cost, coverage and financial security for the client,” according to Business Insurance report.

Before the lawsuit was filed in 2005, the Attorney General’s office launched a probe to gather information and evidence of any wrong-doing.

According to the Charleston Gazette-Mail, investigators found that brokers and insurance companies had made arrangements for secret “contingent commissions,” wherein the insurance carriers would pay extra money to brokers in order to have clients directed towards their companies; these secret commissions allegedly earned brokers millions in extra fees.

$8 million settlement

Wells Fargo denies any wrong-doing in connection to this case, but has agreed to pay $8 million to the Office of the Attorney General on the state’s behalf.

Current West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey announced the settlement on Monday, citing it has a victory for citizens of West Virginia.

“I take very seriously my office’s obligation to protect citizens from questionable marketing practices,” he said. “This settlement is yet another example demonstrating that commitment.”

A copy of the settlement can be viewed here.

The enormity of what Wells Fargo did to many of its customers appears to be sinking in, and anger is building.

Wells Fargo CEO John Stumph was back on Capitol Hill Thursday, facing lawmakers who, if anything, are angrier now than they were the week before when Stumph appeared before them to try to explain how thousands of bank employees opened accounts in customers' names, without their knowledge, just so the employees could hit their sales goals.

It may be too soon to know if the scandal will cause huge numbers of current Wells Fargo customers to look for another bank, but the scandal has already caused the state of California to do so.

“Wells Fargo’s fleecing of its customers by opening fraudulent accounts for the purpose of extracting millions in illegal fees demonstrates, at best, a reckless lack of institutional control and, at worst, a culture which actively promotes wanton greed,” said California Treasurer John Chiang, in a statement.

Losing California's business

Because of the bank's actions, Chaing announced the state will suspend its financial ties with the San Francisco-based financial institution. That means no investments by the Treasurer's Office in Wells Fargo securities.

It also means the state will stop using Wells Fargo brokerage services and will drop the bank as a managing underwriter on state bond sales. The sanctions will remain in place for at least 12 months.

That's likely to get Wells Fargo's attention, since the state Treasurer controls nearly $2 trillion in annual banking transactions, manages billions of dollars in investments, and is the largest issuer of municipal bonds in the U.S.

In a letter to Wells Fargo, Chaing said he is trying to help the bank understand that “integrity and trust matter.”

Warren not letting up

In Washington, the scandal seems to have united a divided Congress in its condemnation of Wells Fargo. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has been the most vocal and most scathing, however, particularly when she confronted Stumph at a Senate Banking Committee hearing.

“You haven’t resigned. You haven’t returned a single nickel of your personal earnings,” she said. “You haven’t fired a single senior executive. Instead, your definition of ‘accountable’ is to push the blame to your low-level employees who don’t have money for a fancy PR firm to defend themselves. It’s gutless leadership.”

Warren says the bank “squeezed employees to the breaking point” in an effort to drive up the price of its stock. Some present and former bank employees, meanwhile, have sued Wells Fargo, claiming they were the biggest victims of the scandal.

Meanwhile, Warren and seven other members of the Senate have sent a letter to the Department of Labor, requesting it investigate Wells Fargo for potential violations of wage and hour laws as it pushed employees to hit sales targets.

A federal regulator has revoked its earlier position and will increase its oversight of Wells Fargo, adding to the fallout from the bank's fake accounts scandal.

The Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a brief statement, saying the bank must now get OCC approval for any changes to its board of directors and senior leadership. Specifically, the OCC said it must approve any senior executive severance packages, known in the business as “golden parachutes.”

In early September, Wells Fargo agreed to pay a $100 million fine for secretly opening checking and credit card accounts in customers' names without their knowledge. Federal regulators who brought the enforcement action claimed the bank did that so it could meet its sales quota for new accounts.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) said the bank employees, under pressure to meet targets and earn sales incentives, opened more than two million unauthorized deposit and credit card accounts.

Largest CFPB fine ever

“Wells Fargo employees secretly opened unauthorized accounts to hit sales targets and receive bonuses,” CFPB Director Richard Cordray said at the time. “Because of the severity of these violations, Wells Fargo is paying the largest penalty the CFPB has ever imposed.”

The bank responded by firing 5,300 employees it said were responsible for the fake accounts, but lawmakers and regulators began looking more closely at the executive suite.

The heat fell squarely on Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf, who was hauled before several Congressional committees to endure tongue lashings from a number of outraged lawmakers. Stumpf eventually announced his early retirement in an effort to quell the furor. The OCC announcement suggests the furor still has room to run.

Meanwhile, business at Wells Fargo has fallen dramatically. Fortune reported late last week that new accounting openings “fell off a cliff” in October. Checking account openings were down 44% from October 2015. New credit card accounts were down 50%. New CEO Tim Sloan said the decline in new accounts was expected.

A federal class action claims Wells Fargo Bank forces borrowers to take out too much flood insurance on their homes, then takes kickbacks and commissions on the insurance it takes out on their behalf. 

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh on behalf of Desiree Morris, of Washington, Pa., who said Wells Fargo acquired a $115,000 mortgage on her home in 2009. She currently owes about $113,000.

Upon taking out the loan, Morris said she bought flood insurance in the amount of $118,000. In November 2010, the policy was renewed and the coverage was increased to $129,800, a 10% increase from her previous level.

Morris argues that the higher amount exceeds federal requirements by more than $14,000.

She notes that federal law requires that homes which, like Morris', are in a flood plain must have insurance “in an amount at least equal to the outstanding principal balance of the loan or the maximum limit of coverage ...whichever is less.”

But that was only the beginning.

The month after her insurance was increased to $129,800, Morris received a letter from Wells Fargo which claimed that her flood insurance coverage was "less than the coverage required" and claimed that she was required to have insurance that would provide the full replacement cost for her home, up to $250,000.

Wells Fargo said in the letter that if Morris did not take out more insurance, the bank would do so for her, taking out a "lender-placed policy" and charging her for it. The letter said Wells Fargo had purchased $94,000 worth of additional flood insurance on a 90-day binder and said it would bill her escrow account for the $893 cost.

The demands in the letter were "fraudulent, deceptive and misleading," Morris' suit claims and it charges that Wells Fargo was "unfairly, unjustly and unlawfully enriched by the kickbacks, commissions or other compensation."

The suit seeks class action status on behalf of anyone who had a loan or line of credit with Wells Fargo who was required to purchase flood insurance.

It charges Wells Fargo with violating the Truth in Lending Act, breaching its agreement, violating the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and misappropriating funds held in trust, among other allegations.