beatandraise : Equity Research with AI and ChatGPT on SEC Edgar

beta

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY/MN

Exhibits

d577023d10q.htm d577023dex3a.htm d577023dex10a.htm d577023dex10b.htm d577023dex12a.htm d577023dex12b.htm d577023dex31a.htm d577023dex31b.htm d577023dex32a.htm d577023dex32b.htm wfc-20130630.xml R122.xml R71.xml R8.xml R141.xml R6.xml R82.xml R53.xml R102.xml R58.xml R29.xml R68.xml R97.xml R74.xml R34.xml R44.xml R32.xml R25.xml R92.xml R65.xml R81.xml R123.xml R100.xml R94.xml R117.xml R56.xml R104.xml R57.xml R19.xml R49.xml R76.xml R51.xml R66.xml R130.xml R109.xml R9.xml R132.xml R116.xml R69.xml R12.xml R133.xml R111.xml R46.xml R114.xml R89.xml R67.xml R40.xml R52.xml R98.xml R11.xml R62.xml R113.xml R14.xml R95.xml R2.xml R61.xml R84.xml R110.xml R101.xml R24.xml R107.xml R105.xml R10.xml R77.xml R88.xml R86.xml R91.xml R90.xml R60.xml R79.xml R5.xml R39.xml R4.xml R93.xml R48.xml R135.xml R70.xml R20.xml R127.xml R73.xml R47.xml R7.xml R17.xml R45.xml R16.xml R142.xml R138.xml R27.xml R18.xml R83.xml R3.xml R134.xml R50.xml R64.xml R42.xml R131.xml R103.xml R85.xml R31.xml R96.xml R30.xml R137.xml R119.xml R21.xml R108.xml R72.xml R124.xml R22.xml R75.xml R129.xml R54.xml R118.xml R37.xml R87.xml R139.xml R120.xml R136.xml R121.xml R13.xml R38.xml R23.xml R63.xml R78.xml R36.xml R106.xml R55.xml R59.xml R43.xml R126.xml R140.xml R26.xml R28.xml R99.xml R33.xml R15.xml R35.xml R112.xml R41.xml R125.xml R1.xml R80.xml R115.xml R128.xml

Graphics

g577023g47h01.jpg g577023g63i60.jpg g577023g69v11.jpg

about terms

beatandraise.com

beta

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY/MN

Statements

Exhibits

Graphics

g577023g47h01.jpg g577023g63i60.jpg g577023g69v11.jpg

about terms

2.4.0.8101100 - Disclosure - Legal Actionstruefalsefalse1false falsefalseFROM_Jan01_2013_TO_Jun30_2013http://www.sec.gov/CIK0000072971duration2013-01-01T00:00:002013-06-30T00:00:001true 1us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstractus-gaap_truenadurationfalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsexbrli:stringItemTypestringfalse0Legal Actions [Abstract]2false 2us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlockus-gaap_truenadurationfalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseverboseLabel1falsefalsefalse00The following supplements our discussion of certain matters previously reported in Part I, Item 3 (Legal Proceedings) of our 2012 Form 10-K and Part II, Item 1 (Legal Proceedings) of our 2013 first quarter Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for events occurring during second quarter 2013. MEDICAL CAPITAL CORPORATION LITIGATION Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. served as indenture trustee for debt issued by affiliates of Medical Capital Corporation, which was placed in receivership at the request of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in August 2009. Since September 2009, Wells Fargo has been named as a defendant in various class and mass actions brought by holders of Medical Capital Corporation's debt, alleging that Wells Fargo breached contractual and other legal obligations owed to them and seeking unspecified damages. On April 16, 2013, the parties reached a settlement, subject to Court approval, of all claims which provides for Wells Fargo to pay $105 million to the plaintiffs. The Court gave preliminary approval to the settlement on May 6, 2013. MARYLAND MORTGAGE LENDING LITIGATION On December 26, 2007, a class action complaint captioned Denise Minter, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo and others violated provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and other laws by conducting mortgage lending business improperly through a general partnership, Prosperity Mortgage Company. The complaint asserts that Prosperity Mortgage Company was not a legitimate affiliated business and instead operated to conceal Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s role in the loans at issue. A plaintiff class of borrowers who received a mortgage loan from Prosperity Mortgage Company that was funded by Prosperity Mortgage Company's line of credit with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. from 1993 to May 31, 2012, had been certified. Prior to trial, the Court narrowed the class action to borrowers who were referred to Prosperity Mortgage Company by Wells Fargo's partner and whose loans were transferred to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. from 1993 to May 31, 2012. On May 6, 2013, the case went to trial. On June 6, 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants, including Wells Fargo. The plaintiffs have requested a new trial on the named plaintiffs' individual claims, and have filed a notice of appeal.       On July 8, 2008, a class action complaint captioned Stacey and Bradley Petry, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., was filed. The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo and others violated the Maryland Finder's Fee Act in the closing of mortgage loans in Maryland. On March 13, 2013, the Court held the plaintiff class did not have sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, which was previously set for March 18, 2013. On June 20, 2013, the Court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs have appealed. ORDER OF POSTING LITIGATION A series of putative class actions have been filed 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. There are currently several such cases pending against Wells Fargo Bank (including the Wachovia Bank cases to which Wells Fargo succeeded), most of which have been consolidated in multi-district litigation proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The bank defendants moved to compel these cases to arbitration under recent Supreme Court authority. On November 22, 2011, the Judge denied the motion. The bank defendants appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On October 26, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of the motion. Wells Fargo renewed its motion to compel arbitration with respect to the unnamed putative class members. On April 8, 2013, the District Court denied the motion. Wells Fargo has appealed the decision to the Eleventh Circuit.       On August 10, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order in Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a case that was not consolidated in the multi-district proceedings, enjoining the bank's use of the high to low posting method for debit card transactions with respect to the plaintiff class of California depositors, directing the bank to establish a different posting methodology and ordering remediation of approximately $203 million. On October 26, 2010, a final judgment was entered in Gutierrez. On October 28, 2010, Wells Fargo appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 26, 2012, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order requiring Wells Fargo to change its order of posting and vacated the portion of the order granting remediation of approximately $203 million on the grounds of federal preemption. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that Wells Fargo violated a California state law prohibition on fraudulent representations and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On May 14, 2013, the District Court entered an order indicating it will reinstate the judgment of approximately $203 million against Wells Fargo and enjoined Wells Fargo from making or disseminating additional misrepresentations about its order of posting of transactions. Wells Fargo has appealed the order to the Ninth Circuit. On August 5, 2013, the District Court entered a judgment against Wells Fargo in the approximate amount of $203 million, together with post-judgment interest thereon from October 25, 2010. OUTLOOK When establishing a liability for contingent litigation losses, the Company determines a range of potential losses for each matter that is both probable and estimable, and records the amount it considers to be the best estimate within the range. The high end of the range of reasonably possible potential litigation losses in excess of the Company's liability for probable and estimable losses was $1.1 billion as of June 30, 2013. For these matters and others where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, there may be a range of possible losses in excess of the established liability that cannot be estimated. Based on information currently available, advice of counsel, available insurance coverage and established reserves, Wells Fargo believes that the eventual outcome of the actions against Wells Fargo and/or its subsidiaries, including the matters described above, will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on Wells Fargo's consolidated financial position. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of those matters, if unfavorable, may be material to Wells Fargo's results of operations for any particular period.falsefalsefalsenonnum:textBlockItemTypenaThe entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. false0Legal ActionsfalseLegal ActionsUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnowntruefalsefalseSheethttp://wellsfargo.com/role/LegalActions12