Wells Fargo, Wachovia, And The Fed.
Undisclosed Federal Reserve loans and unreported credit lines.
False Securities and Exchange Commission Sarbanes Oxley Certifications.
Federal regulatory whistleblower retaliation inaction.
1. On February 17, 2016, GEORGE HARTZMAN, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY (NYSE:WFC), Defendant, was ordered to proceed to trial on July 10, 2017 by the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. This Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) whistleblower retaliation case implicates John Stumpf and other Wells Fargo and Wachovia executives in illegal acts.
Within the order which overcame a Wells Fargo motion to dismiss, Chief Judge William L. Osteen Jr. wrote;
“the court finds that Plaintiff has met his burden of pleading an objectively reasonable belief regarding Wells Fargo’s alleged failure to include the receipt of federal monies in its [Securities and Exchange Commission] (SEC) filings” and “Plaintiff alleges both that the Securities Division of the North Carolina Department of the Secretary of State found enough merit to his concerns on this issue to refer them to [the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority] (FINRA) and the SEC, and former SEC officials who were interviewed about the issue found plausible violations among his concerns.” And “If financial experts and the SEC itself were concerned about the materiality of these non-disclosures and possible violations of the securities laws, it is contrary to reason to find it unreasonable for Plaintiff to have believed they were violations as well” and “the court finds that Plaintiff has alleged that he had an objectively reasonable belief that these actions constituted a violation of the law.”
2. This action may coincide with a “top-to-bottom review of cases, complaints, or violations” ordered by Labor Secretary Thomas Perez in late September, 2016, which will include a review of “the entire docket” of open and closed whistleblower complaints against Wells Fargo since 2010.
Some of this information may enable Wachovia shareholders to pursue legal actions against Wells Fargo for not disclosing material terms of loans and credit lines provided by the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank (FED) before the Wachovia Wells Fargo merger. Litigation by clients whose accounts were governed under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 (The Advisors Act) involving bogus financial plans created to qualify for Financial Advisor retention incentive bonus’ after the Wells Wachovia merger is another possible outcome.