Wells Fargo & Company Class Action Lawsuit - WFC
Case Summary
Investors who suffered a loss and would like to learn more, click here to contact us.
The Wells Fargo class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) common stock between February 24, 2021 and June 9, 2022, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The Wells Fargo class action lawsuit – captioned Ardalan v. Wells Fargo & Company, No. 22-cv-03811 (N.D. Cal.) – charges Wells Fargo and certain of its top executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Wells Fargo class action lawsuit, please provide your information in the form on this page. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Wells Fargo class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than August 29, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: In 2020, Wells Fargo expanded its so-called “Diverse Search Requirement,” also referred to as a diverse slate hiring policy, requiring that at least 50% of interview candidates must represent a historically underrepresented group with respect to at least one diversity dimension (including race/ethnicity, gender, LGBTQ, veterans, and people with disabilities) for most posted roles in the United States with total direct compensation greater than $100,000 per year. In addition, at least one interviewer on the hiring panel must represent a historically underrepresented group with respect to at least one diversity dimension.
The Wells Fargo class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Wells Fargo had misrepresented its commitment to diversity in Wells Fargo’s workplace; (ii) Wells Fargo conducted fake job interviews in order to meet its Diverse Search Requirement; (iii) this conduct subjected Wells Fargo to an increased risk of regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny and enforcement action, including criminal charges; (iv) all of the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to negatively impact Wells Fargo’s reputation; and (v) as a result, Wells Fargo’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On May 19, 2022, The New York Times published an article entitled “At Wells Fargo, a Quest to Increase Diversity Leads to Fake Job Interviews.” Citing discussions with “seven current and former Wells Fargo employees,” including Joe Bruno, a former executive in Wells Fargo’s wealth management division, the article reported, in relevant part, that “[f]or many open positions, employees would interview a ‘diverse’ candidate,” but “that often, the so-called diverse candidate would be interviewed for a job that had already been promised to someone else.” The article further reported that Mr. Bruno was fired after “complain[ing] to his bosses” about the practices. On this news, Wells Fargo’s common stock price fell.
Then, on June 9, 2022, The New York Times published another article entitled “Federal Prosecutors Open Criminal Inquiry of Wells Fargo’s Hiring Practices.” The article reported that federal prosecutors are investigating whether Wells Fargo violated federal laws by conducting fake job interviews to meet Wells Fargo’s Diverse Search Requirement. The article also revealed that, since The New York Times’ May 19, 2022 article focusing on Wells Fargo’s wealth management business, “another 10 current and former employees have shared stories about how they were subject to fake interviews, or conducted them, or saw paperwork documenting the practice,” and that “sham interviews occurred across multiple business lines, including its mortgage servicing, home lending and retail banking operations.” That same day, Wells Fargo issued a press release entitled “Wells Fargo response to New York Times article,” which confirmed that “[e]arlier this week, the company temporarily paused the use of its diverse slate guidelines,” and that, “[d]uring this pause, the company is conducting a review so that hiring managers, senior leaders and recruiters fully understand how the guidelines should be implemented – and so we can have confidence that our guidelines live up to their promise.” On this news, Wells Fargo’s common stock price fell by more than 8%, further damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Wells Fargo common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the class action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world’s leading complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year alone – more than triple the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs’ firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs’ firms in the world and the Firm’s attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig.