Legal Actions

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Legal Actions

Note 17:  Legal Actions

Wells Fargo and certain of our subsidiaries are involved in a number of judicial, regulatory, governmental, arbitration, and other proceedings or investigations concerning matters arising from the conduct of our business activities, and many of those proceedings and investigations expose Wells Fargo to potential financial loss. These proceedings and investigations include actions brought against Wells Fargo and/or our subsidiaries with respect to corporate-related matters and transactions in which Wells Fargo and/or our subsidiaries were involved. In addition, Wells Fargo and our subsidiaries may be requested to provide information or otherwise cooperate with government authorities in the conduct of investigations of other persons or industry groups.

Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome, Wells Fargo and/or our subsidiaries have generally denied, or believe we have a meritorious defense and will deny, liability in all significant legal actions pending against us, including the matters described below, and we intend to defend vigorously each case, other than matters we describe as having settled. We establish accruals for legal actions when potential losses associated with the actions become probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. For such accruals, we record the amount we consider to be the best estimate within a range of potential losses that are both probable and estimable; however, if we cannot determine a best estimate, then we record the low end of the range of those potential losses. The actual costs of resolving legal actions may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for those actions.

ATM ACCESS FEE LITIGATION In October 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action, Mackmin, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al., against Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs allege that the Visa and MasterCard requirement that if an ATM operator charges an access fee on Visa and MasterCard transactions, then that fee cannot be greater than the access fee charged for transactions on other networks, violates antitrust rules. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees where available under federal and state law. Two other antitrust cases that make similar allegations were filed in the same court, but these cases did not name Wells Fargo as a defendant. On February 13, 2013, the district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the three actions. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissals and, on August 4, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the district court’s decisions and remanded the three cases to the district court for further proceedings. On June 28, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted defendants’ petitions for writ of certiorari to review the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. On November 17, 2016, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the petitions as improvidently granted, and the three cases returned to the district court for further proceedings.

AUTOMOBILE LENDING MATTERS On April 20, 2018, the Company entered into consent orders with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to resolve, among other things, investigations by the agencies into the Company’s compliance risk management program and its past practices involving certain automobile collateral protection insurance (CPI) policies and certain mortgage interest rate lock extensions. The consent orders

require remediation to customers and the payment of a total of $1.0 billion in civil money penalties to the agencies. In July 2017, the Company announced a plan to remediate customers who may have been financially harmed due to issues related to automobile CPI policies purchased through a third-party vendor on their behalf. Multiple putative class action cases alleging, among other things, unfair and deceptive practices relating to these CPI policies, have been filed against the Company and consolidated into one multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Company has reached an agreement to resolve the multi-district litigation pursuant to which the Company has agreed to pay, consistent with its remediation obligations under the consent orders, approximately $547 million in remediation to customers with CPI policies placed between October 15, 2005, and September 30, 2016. The settlement amount is not incremental to the Company’s remediation obligations under the consent orders, but instead encompasses those obligations, including remediation payments to date. The settlement amount is subject to change as the Company finalizes its remediation activity under the consent orders. In addition, the Company has agreed to contribute $1 million to a common fund for the class. The district court granted final approval of the settlement on November 21, 2019. A putative class of shareholders also filed a securities fraud class action against the Company and its executive officers alleging material misstatements and omissions of CPI-related information in the Company’s public disclosures. In addition, the Company is subject to a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging that customers are entitled to refunds related to the unused portion of guaranteed automobile protection (GAP) waiver or insurance agreements between the customer and dealer and, by assignment, the lender. Allegations related to the CPI and GAP programs are among the subjects of shareholder derivative lawsuits pending in federal and state court in California. The court dismissed the state court action in September 2018, but plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in November 2018. The parties to the state court action have entered into an agreement to resolve the action pursuant to which the Company will pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and undertake certain business and governance practices. The state court granted final approval of the settlement on January 15, 2020. These and other issues related to the origination, servicing, and collection of consumer automobile loans, including related insurance products, have also subjected the Company to formal or informal inquiries, investigations, or examinations from federal and state government agencies. In December 2018, the Company entered into an agreement with all 50 state Attorneys General and the District of Columbia to resolve an investigation into the Company’s retail sales practices, CPI and GAP, and mortgage interest rate lock matters, pursuant to which the Company paid $575 million.

CONSUMER DEPOSIT ACCOUNT RELATED REGULATORY INVESTIGATION The CFPB is conducting an investigation into whether customers were unduly harmed by the Company’s historical practices associated with the freezing (and, in many cases, closing) of consumer deposit accounts after the Company detected suspected fraudulent activity (by third parties or account holders) that affected those accounts.

FIDUCIARY AND CUSTODY ACCOUNT FEE CALCULATIONS Federal government agencies are conducting formal or informal

inquiries, investigations, or examinations regarding fee calculations within certain fiduciary and custody accounts in the Company’s investment and fiduciary services business, which is part of the wealth management business within the Wealth and Investment Management (WIM) operating segment. The Company has determined that there have been instances of incorrect fees being applied to certain assets and accounts, resulting in both overcharges and undercharges to customers.

FOREIGN EXCHANGE BUSINESS Federal government agencies, including the United States Department of Justice (Department of Justice), are investigating or examining certain activities in the Company’s foreign exchange business, including whether customers may have received pricing inconsistent with commitments made to those customers. These matters are at varying stages. The Company has responded, and continues to respond, to requests from a number of the foregoing and has discussed the potential resolution of some of the matters.

INTERCHANGE LITIGATION  Plaintiffs representing a putative class of merchants have filed putative class actions, and individual merchants have filed individual actions, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo & Company, Wachovia Bank, N.A., and Wachovia Corporation regarding the interchange fees associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions. Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks and bank holding companies are also named as defendants in these actions. These actions have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The amended and consolidated complaint asserts claims against defendants based on alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeks damages, as well as injunctive relief. Plaintiff merchants allege that Visa, MasterCard, and payment card issuing banks unlawfully colluded to set interchange rates. Plaintiffs also allege that enforcement of certain Visa and MasterCard rules and alleged tying and bundling of services offered to merchants are anticompetitive. Wells Fargo and Wachovia, along with other defendants and entities, are parties to Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements, which provide that they, along with other entities, will share, based on a formula, in any losses from the Interchange Litigation. On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard, and the financial institution defendants, including Wells Fargo, signed a memorandum of understanding with plaintiff merchants to resolve the consolidated class action and reached a separate settlement in principle of the consolidated individual actions. The settlement payments to be made by all defendants in the consolidated class and individual actions totaled approximately $6.6 billion before reductions applicable to certain merchants opting out of the settlement. The class settlement also provided for the distribution to class merchants of 10 basis points of default interchange across all credit rate categories for a period of eight consecutive months. The district court granted final approval of the settlement, which was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by settlement objector merchants. Other merchants opted out of the settlement and are pursuing several individual actions. On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit vacated the settlement agreement and reversed and remanded the consolidated action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for further proceedings. On November 23, 2016, prior class counsel filed a petition to the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the reversal of the settlement by the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied the petition on March 27, 2017. On November 30, 2016, the district court appointed lead class counsel for a damages class and an equitable relief class. The

parties have entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the money damages class claims pursuant to which defendants will pay a total of approximately $6.2 billion, which includes approximately $5.3 billion of funds remaining from the 2012 settlement and $900 million in additional funding. The Company’s allocated responsibility for the additional funding is approximately $94.5 million. The court granted final approval of the settlement on December 13, 2019, which was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by settlement objector merchants. Several of the opt-out and direct action litigations have been settled while others remain pending. Discovery is proceeding in the opt-out litigations and the equitable relief class case.

LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS Federal government agencies have undertaken formal or informal inquiries or investigations regarding the manner in which the Company purchased, and negotiated the purchase of, certain federal low income housing tax credits in connection with the financing of low income housing developments.

MOBILE DEPOSIT PATENT LITIGATION  The Company is a defendant in two separate cases brought by United Services Automobile Association (USAA) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging claims of patent infringement regarding mobile deposit capture technology patents held by USAA. Trial in the first case commenced on October 30, 2019, and resulted in a $200 million verdict against the Company. Trial in the second case commenced on January 6, 2020, and resulted in a $102.7 million verdict against the Company. The Company has filed post-trial motions to, among other things, vacate the verdicts, and USAA has filed post-trial motions seeking future royalty payments and damages for willful infringement.

MORTGAGE LOAN MODIFICATION LITIGATION Plaintiffs representing a putative class of mortgage borrowers have filed separate putative class actions, Hernandez v. Wells Fargo, et al., Coordes v. Wells Fargo, et al., Ryder v. Wells Fargo, Liguori v. Wells Fargo, and Dore v. Wells Fargo, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the United States District Court for the District of Washington, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, respectively. Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo improperly denied mortgage loan modifications or repayment plans to customers in the foreclosure process due to the overstatement of foreclosure attorneys’ fees that were included for purposes of determining whether a customer in the foreclosure process qualified for a mortgage loan modification or repayment plan.

MORTGAGE-RELATED REGULATORY INVESTIGATIONS  Federal and state government agencies, including the Department of Justice, have been investigating or examining certain mortgage related activities of Wells Fargo and predecessor institutions. Wells Fargo, for itself and for predecessor institutions, has responded, or continues to respond, to requests from these agencies seeking information regarding the origination, underwriting, and securitization of residential mortgages, including sub-prime mortgages. These agencies have advanced theories of purported liability with respect to certain of these activities. An agreement, pursuant to which the Company paid $2.09 billion, was reached in August 2018 to resolve the Department of Justice investigation, which related to certain 2005-2007 residential mortgage-backed securities activities. In

addition, the Company reached an agreement with the Attorney General of the State of Illinois in November 2018 pursuant to which the Company paid $17 million in restitution to certain Illinois state pension funds to resolve a claim relating to certain residential mortgage-backed securities activities. Other financial institutions have entered into similar settlements with these agencies, the nature of which related to the specific activities of those financial institutions, including the imposition of significant financial penalties and remedial actions.

OFAC RELATED INVESTIGATION The Company has self-identified an issue whereby certain foreign banks utilized a Wells Fargo software-based solution to conduct import/export trade-related financing transactions with countries and entities prohibited by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury. We do not believe any funds related to these transactions flowed through accounts at Wells Fargo as a result of the aforementioned conduct. The Company has made voluntary self-disclosures to OFAC and is cooperating with an inquiry from the Department of Justice.

ORDER OF POSTING LITIGATION  Plaintiffs filed a series of putative class actions against Wachovia Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many other banks, challenging the “high to low” order in which the banks post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts. Most of these actions were consolidated in multi-district litigation proceedings (MDL proceedings) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The court in the MDL proceedings has certified a class of putative plaintiffs, and Wells Fargo moved to compel arbitration of the claims of unnamed class members. The court denied the motions to compel arbitration in October 2016, and Wells Fargo appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In May 2018, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in Wells Fargo’s favor and found that Wells Fargo had not waived its arbitration rights and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On September 26, 2019, the district court entered an order granting Wells Fargo’s motion and dismissed the claims of unnamed class members in favor of arbitration. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

RETAIL SALES PRACTICES MATTERS A number of bodies or entities, including (a) federal, state, and local government agencies, including the Department of Justice, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the United States Department of Labor, (b) state attorneys general, including the New York Attorney General, and (c) Congressional committees, have undertaken formal or informal inquiries, investigations, or examinations arising out of certain retail sales practices of the Company that were the subject of settlements with the CFPB, the OCC, and the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney announced by the Company on September 8, 2016. These matters are at varying stages. The Company has responded, and continues to respond, to requests from a number of the foregoing. In October 2018, the Company entered into an agreement to resolve the New York Attorney General’s investigation pursuant to which the Company paid $65 million to the State of New York. In December 2018, the Company entered into an agreement with all 50 state Attorneys General and the District of Columbia to resolve an investigation into the Company’s retail sales practices, CPI and GAP, and mortgage interest rate lock matters, pursuant to which the Company paid $575 million. On February 21, 2020, the Company entered into an

agreement with the Department of Justice to resolve the Department of Justice’s criminal investigation into the Company’s retail sales practices, as well as a separate agreement to resolve the Department of Justice’s civil investigation. As part of the Department of Justice criminal settlement, no charges will be filed against the Company provided the Company abides by all the terms of the agreement. The Department of Justice criminal settlement also includes the Company’s agreement that the facts set forth in the settlement document constitute sufficient facts for the finding of criminal violations of statutes regarding bank records and personal information. On February 21, 2020, the Company also entered into an order to resolve the SEC’s investigation arising out of the Company’s retail sales practices. The SEC order contains a finding, to which the Company consented, that the facts set forth include violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. As part of the resolution of the Department of Justice and SEC investigations, the Company has agreed to make payments totaling $3.0 billion. In addition, as part of the settlements and included in the $3.0 billion amount, the Company has agreed to the creation of a $500 million Fair Fund for the benefit of investors who were harmed by the conduct covered in the SEC settlement.

In addition, a number of lawsuits have been filed by non-governmental parties seeking damages or other remedies related to these retail sales practices. First, various class plaintiffs, purporting to represent consumers who allege that they received products or services without their authorization or consent, have brought separate putative class actions against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and various other jurisdictions. In April 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement in the first-filed action, Jabbari v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., pursuant to which the Company will pay $142 million to resolve claims regarding certain products or services provided without authorization or consent for the time period May 1, 2002 to April 20, 2017. The district court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement on June 14, 2018. Several appeals of the district court’s order granting final approval of the settlement have been filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Second, Wells Fargo shareholders brought a consolidated securities fraud class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging certain misstatements and omissions in the Company’s disclosures related to sales practices matters. The Company entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this matter pursuant to which the Company paid $480 million. The district court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement on December 20, 2018. Third, Wells Fargo shareholders have brought numerous shareholder derivative lawsuits asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims against, among others, current and former directors and officers for their alleged involvement with and failure to detect and prevent sales practices issues. These actions are currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and California state court as coordinated proceedings. An additional lawsuit, which asserts similar claims and is pending in Delaware state court, has been stayed. The parties have entered into settlement agreements to resolve the shareholder derivative lawsuits pursuant to which insurance carriers will pay the Company approximately $240 million for alleged damage to the Company, and the Company will pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. The federal court granted preliminary approval of the settlement for its action and held a final approval hearing on August 1, 2019. The

state court granted final approval of the settlement for its action on January 15, 2020. Fourth, multiple employment litigation matters have been brought against Wells Fargo, including (a) a purported Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of 401(k) plan participants; this action has been dismissed and is now on appeal; (b) a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of team members who allege that they protested sales practice misconduct and/or were terminated for not meeting sales goals; this action has been dismissed, and we have entered into a framework with plaintiffs’ counsel to address individual claims that have been asserted; (c) various wage and hour class actions brought in federal and state court in California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania on behalf of non-exempt branch based team members alleging that sales pressure resulted in uncompensated overtime; these actions have been settled; and (d) multiple single-plaintiff Sarbanes-Oxley Act complaints and state law whistleblower actions filed with the United States Department of Labor or in various state courts alleging adverse employment actions for raising sales practice misconduct issues.

RMBS TRUSTEE LITIGATION In November 2014, a group of institutional investors (Institutional Investor Plaintiffs), including funds affiliated with BlackRock, Inc., filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., alleging claims against the Company in its capacity as trustee for a number of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trusts (Federal Court Complaint). Similar complaints have been filed against other trustees in various courts, including in the Southern District of New York, in New York state court, and in other states, by RMBS investors. The Federal Court Complaint alleged that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee, caused losses to investors and asserted causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee’s alleged failure to notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, notify investors of alleged events of default, and abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. Plaintiffs sought money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. In December 2014 and December 2015, certain other investors filed additional complaints alleging similar claims against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in the Southern District of New York (Related Federal Cases). In January 2016, the Southern District of New York entered an order in connection with the Federal Court Complaint dismissing claims related to certain of the trusts at issue (Dismissed Trusts). The Company’s subsequent motion to dismiss the Federal Court Complaint and the complaints for the Related Federal Cases was granted in part and denied in part in March 2017. In May 2017, the Company filed third-party complaints against certain investment advisors affiliated with the Institutional Investor Plaintiffs seeking contribution with respect to claims alleged in the Federal Court Complaint (Third-Party Claims).

In December 2016, the Institutional Investor Plaintiffs filed a new putative class action complaint in New York state court in respect of 261 RMBS trusts, including the Dismissed Trusts, for which Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., serves or served as trustee (State Court Action). A complaint raising similar allegations to those in the Federal Court Complaint was filed in May 2016 in New York state court by IKB International and IKB Deutsche Industriebank (IKB Action).

In July 2017, certain of the plaintiffs from the State Court Action filed a civil complaint relating to Wells Fargo Bank,

N.A.’s setting aside reserves for legal fees and expenses in connection with the liquidation of eleven RMBS trusts at issue in the State Court Action (Declaratory Judgment Action). The complaint sought, among other relief, declarations that the Company is not entitled to indemnification, the advancement of funds, or the taking of reserves from trust funds for legal fees and expenses it incurs in defending the claims in the State Court Action.

In May 2019, the New York state court approved a settlement agreement among the Institutional Investor Plaintiffs and the Company pursuant to which, among other terms, the Company paid $43 million to resolve the Federal Court Complaint and the State Court Action. The settlement also resolved the Third Party Claims and the Declaratory Judgment Action. The settlement did not affect the Related Federal Cases or the IKB Action, which remain pending.

SEMINOLE TRIBE TRUSTEE LITIGATION The Seminole Tribe of Florida filed a complaint in Florida state court alleging that Wells Fargo, as trustee, charged excess fees in connection with the administration of a minor’s trust and failed to invest the assets of the trust prudently. The complaint was later amended to include three individual current and former beneficiaries as plaintiffs and to remove the Tribe as a party to the case. In December 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that the Tribe is a necessary party and that the individual beneficiaries lack standing to bring claims. The motion was denied in June 2018. Trial is scheduled for April 2020.

WHOLESALE BANKING CONSENT ORDER INVESTIGATION On November 19, 2015, the Company entered into a consent order with the OCC, pursuant to which the Wholesale Banking group was required to implement customer due diligence standards that include collection of current beneficial ownership information for certain business customers. The Company is responding to inquiries from various federal government agencies regarding potentially inappropriate conduct in connection with the collection of beneficial ownership information.

OUTLOOK  As described above, the Company establishes accruals for legal actions when potential losses associated with the actions become probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. The high end of the range of reasonably possible potential losses in excess of the Company’s accrual for probable and estimable losses was approximately $2.6 billion as of December 31, 2019. The outcomes of legal actions are unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, and it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible. It is also inherently difficult to estimate the amount of any loss and there may be matters for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible but not currently estimable. Accordingly, actual losses may be in excess of the established accrual or the range of reasonably possible loss. Wells Fargo is unable to determine whether the ultimate resolution of the retail sales practices matters will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition. Based on information currently available, advice of counsel, available insurance coverage, and established reserves, Wells Fargo believes that the eventual outcome of other actions against Wells Fargo and/or its subsidiaries will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on Wells Fargo’s consolidated financial condition. However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of a matter, if unfavorable, may be material to Wells Fargo’s results of operations for any particular period.