Wells Fargo: We can't be sued for lying to shareholders because it was obvious we were lying


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/11/12/fool-me-thrice.html


#2

How the hell is Swill Fargo still in business :interrobang:


#3

it was obvious we were lying

They are lying about that.


#4

Wells Fargo is and has been a criminal enterprise being run solely to disguise their various scams.
WHY? has there been no RICO prosecution???


#5

But the bank is right. "Working to restore trust” and “trying to be more transparent” are extremely vague statements. You can sue, but you can’t sue over a phrase like that.

But what’s the point of critically reading the news when there’s outrage to be had!


#6


#7

Too big to fail?


#8

Remember kids, when you see the word “probably” being used, it might not turn out the way you expect.


#9

Well perhaps because we have become a Plutocracy and corporations are unabashedly writing policy.


#10

You are probably right. coughs gently into fist


#11

I am so, so happy I no longer have any association with Wells Fargo. The last straw came when I sold my co-op in New York and closing was delayed and almost didn’t happen because the buyers lender (wells fargo) refused to believe that my lender (wells fargo) had filed the correct paperwork to close the mortgage of the previous owner who used, you guessed it, wells fargo.

Then they tried to tell me that each of those different wells fargos were, in fact, completely separate entities and it was unreasonable to expect that they could communicate effectively with other branches of their own company.

And they paid me the proceeds of the sale with a regular check because they said they didn’t have time to get a cashiers check - I mean its not like they are a bank, right? I said it was fine as long as I could make the down payment on my next home purchase with a personal check - and we all laughed about that.

Scumbags and assholes - every one of them. (and yes I have checked to make sure they didn’t open fictitious accounts in my name)


#12

Unfortunately, it is in fact unrealistic to expect different branches of a big company to communicate effectively with one another. Ridiculous, but common. Your example is horrifying regardless.

Also, this Wells Fargo claim is exactly what I would expect of the company that claimed forged contracts opening new accounts were valid for the purpose of preventing class action suits and enforcing arbitration clauses.


#13

If anyone reading still banks with them may I suggest switching to a local credit union? My husband and I did several years ago and we have saved money from doing so. We picked one that had a cash machine on our block, so no fees for that, and it’s got a branch within two miles of my house. Super convenient, and I feel good about myself. My Dad switched his business finances over and it’s saving about $1,000.00 in fees and general who-ha each year. For one thing, the credit union enters the deposits for the day BEFORE it does the withdrawals.


#14

LOL. Because now they are messing about with rich peoples’ money.
Might actually go somewhere. ****


#15

yeah but the best tasting juice is puffery not because it is a lie but because it is a matter of opinion that cannot be verified - oh wait, silly me, I forgot in our new reality the truth is also an opinion that cannot be verified therefore lying (telling the not truth) is just the same.


#16

+1, although every loan attempt I’ve tried to undertake with mine has resulted in failure; apparently even my super high credit score isn’t good enough for them. :frowning:


#17

This is an intriguing legal theory… let’s apply it to every bit of paperwork they’ve ever filed that gives them permission to do business in the US. Since they must have been, "just kidding’, then it’s only prudent to erase their corporate bona fides from the balance sheet.


#18

“Probably” is the parental “maybe”.

“Dad? Can we go to Six Flags and ride the new rollercoaster?”

“Maybe.”

“Aw…‘maybe’ means ‘no’!”


#19

In the same filing that they claim that the statements were puffery, they also claim they were, and remain, true:

Wells Fargo says that even though the statements by its management fall within the legal definition of puffery, that doesn’t mean they’re untrue. “Wells Fargo stands behind the statements it made regarding its commitment to transparency and rebuilding trust with its customers,” the bank told me by email. “These statements were true then and remain so today.”

Can I have my outrage now? Please?


#20

Well it is obvious that the board and all senior management at Wells Fargo should be in prison…