Note, Throwing a Monkey Wrench into the Wheels of International Finance: \u3cem\u3eWells Fargo Asia Ltd. V. Citibank, N.A.\u3cem\u3e

This note attempts to illustrate concisely the issues and potential ramifications of Wells Fargo. After describing the complex factual and procedural histories of the case, the note briefly surveys the various approaches to the Act of State doctrine and suggests that the Court should consider Act of State issues in Wells Fargo. Next, it examines the lower courts\u27 analyses of the case and what effects their rulings would have if the Court were to adopt them. Due to the resulting legal confusion that the lower courts\u27 decisions would wreak on the Eurodollar community, Wells Fargo should not remain as precedent. Currently, Wells Fargo would subject these deposits to the laws of New York. The Court should reject the lower courts\u27 narrow reasoning and instead decide Wells Fargo in light of the Act of State issues involved, especially by addressing questions of debt situs determination raised by previous cases. Upon examination of the various approaches to debt situs determination, the Court should adopt the incidents of the debt test, an approach that is both more equitable to bank expropriation cases and more consistent with the tenets of the Act of State doctrine. Since banks have always assumed that Eurodollar deposits are situated, or have their situs, in the host country of a branch office, the situs of the debt in Wells Fargo should be Manila. Philippine law would then decide the case. Yet, even if Philippine law were to govern the outcome of Wells Fargo, plaintiff Wells Fargo Asia Limited ( WFAL ) might still prevail

Assessing bank antitrust standards

Bank mergers ; Antitrust law ; Bank competition ; Crocker National Corporation ; Wells Fargo Bank

The Wells Fargo-Crocker acquisition

Bank mergers ; Wells Fargo Bank ; Crocker National Corporation ; Banks and banking - California

Do Enforcement Actions by US Federal Banking Regulators Against Banks for Unsound And Unsafe Banking Practices Deter Further and Future Wrongdoing? A Way Forward.

“Wells Fargo fined $1 billion for ‘reckless unsafe or unsound practices.”1 The story behind this headline in the Washington Post on April 20, 2018, set out the problem. Wells Fargo engaged in “unsafe or unsound practices”2 by charging customers for services that Wells Fargo should have absorbed and administering a compulsory insurance scheme that unnecessarily increased borrowers auto loans financial obligation without approval. 3 According to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), “Since at least 2011, the Bank4 (Wells Fargo) has failed to implement and maintain a compliance risk management program commensurate with the Bank’s size, complexity and risk profile.”5 The OCC also found that “a comprehensive plan to address compliance risk management deficiencies, fill critical staffing positions,” 6 enforce “a reliable risk assessment and testing program and report compliance concerns adequately to the board was” 7 not implemented.”

Strategizing for Corporate Social Responsibility: Wells Fargo Case

This study evaluates Wells Fargo Corporation’s Corporate Social Responsibility strategy. It employs a qualitative methodology using the instrumental case study approach, within which the broad research question is raised: How does the Wells Fargo Corporation strategize for, and implement, corporate social responsibility? Our findings revealed that Wells Fargo has a solid, well-integrated CSR strategy deeply engrained within its culture, skillfully aligned with its capabilities and resources, and that this plan has been executed expertly within the corporation. We will communicate our findings to their leadership team in hopes they continue expansion of their CSR strategies and recommend they consider seeking status as a B-Corporation

Adversary Proceeding Not Required for Bankruptcy Courts to Determine Lien Status

(Excerpt) In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. AMH Roman Two NC, LLC, the Fourth Circuit denied Wells Fargo’s motion to set aside an order canceling its mortgage because the motion was not timely. In 2002, Wells Fargo extended a mortgage to the debtors on a property in Pendleton, North Carolina. Two years later, debtors refinanced the property with PNC Bank. Although PNC fully repaid Wells Fargo’s loan, Wells Fargo allowed the debtors’ line of credit to remain open, and permitted the debtors to take advances totaling over $300,000. Then, in 2012, debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 13, which triggered an automatic stay on collection efforts outside of the bankruptcy case. PNC filed two proofs of claim against the debtors, while Wells Fargo filed one. Six months later, PNC filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, seeking to foreclose its interest in the property. Wells Fargo did not respond to PNC’s motion. The bankruptcy court entered an order which granted PNC relief from the automatic stay, accorded priority to PNC’s mortgage, and canceled Wells Fargo’s mortgage. Subsequently, PNC foreclosed on the property and the bankruptcy court’s order was recorded in the Wake County Register of Deeds. Thereafter, AMH Roman Two NC, LLC (“AMH”) purchased the property relying, in part, on the order cancelling Wells Fargo’s mortgage. After learning that its mortgage was canceled by the bankruptcy court’s order, Wells Fargo moved to set aside the order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b). Specifically, it argued that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to cancel the lien because the order resulted from a motion, rather than an adversary proceeding. The bankruptcy court denied the motion to set aside the order canceling the mortgage because the motion was untimely, and because granting the motion would unfairly prejudice AMH. On appeal, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina and thereafter the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order, finding that Wells Fargo failed to act to prevent the foreclosure despite receiving adequate notice and due process. Moreover, the Fourth Circuit noted that AMH was a bona fide purchaser who relied in good faith on the bankruptcy court order when it purchased the property in foreclosure

First-Ever Public Art Installation for Wells Fargo Golf Championship Planned

Wells Fargo Bank has commissioned a series of eight sculpture installations for display at the 2012 Wells Fargo Championship, a PGA TOUR golf tournament that will tee off April 30 through May 6 at Charlotte’s Quail Hollow Club. This collaboration marks the first time in the championship’s 10-year history, and one of the few instances nationally, that public art has been incorporated into a major golf event

Regulating from the Ground Up: Controlling Financial Institutions with Bank Workers’ Unions

In the Wells Fargo accounts scandal, millions of banking accounts were created for customers without their consent. The scandal cost Wells Fargo customers millions of dollars in direct and indirect charges. Investigations revealed that employees were pressured into creating these false accounts through abusive banking practices promulgated from the top. These practices are not unique to Wells Fargo; instead, they are ubiquitous in the financial services industry. Current financial regulations do not adequately address how to mitigate banks’ harmful practices. This comment explores the premise that bank worker unionization could serve as a much-needed check on the power of financial institutions and the directors and officers who run them. The comment provides an overview of why large financial institutions are incentivized to engage in harmful and economically unsound banking practices. The comment then outlines the potential for unions to constrain abusive commercial banking interests and recounts current efforts to unionize bank workers. Finally, the comment argues that threats to dismantle current consumer protection enforcement and banking regulations call for a new, worker-centered approach to hold financial institutions accountable to the public

Shea v. Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp., 810 F. 2d 372 (1987)

laintiffs-appellants, former employees of Wells Fargo Armored Service Corporation, appeal from a summary judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Nickerson, J.) in favor of defendant-appellee Wells Fargo. The district court\u27s opinion is reported at 637 F.Supp. 73 (E.D.N.Y.1986). Appellants\u27 complaint asserted violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (1982) ( ERISA ), and pendent state claims resulting from appellee\u27s refusal to pay accumulated sick leave and vacation benefits. Appellants\u27 state contract, fraud, and misrepresentation claims were dismissed. The district judge also dismissed the ERISA claims, holding that the benefits upon which the suit was predicated did not constitute an employee welfare benefit plan within ERISA coverage. The district court therefore granted Wells Fargo\u27s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, appellants challenge the district court\u27s dismissal of the ERISA claims by renewing their assertion that the benefits at issue are within the purview of ERISA. We affirm