CCRcorp Sites  

The CCRcorp Network unlocks access to a world of insights, research, guides and information in a range of specialty areas.

Our Sites

TheCorporateCounsel

TheCorporateCounsel.net

A basis for research and practical guidance focusing on federal securities laws, compliance & corporate governance.

DealLawyers

DealLawyers.com

An educational service that provides practical guidance on legal issues involving public and private mergers & acquisitions, joint ventures, private equity – and much more.

CompensationStandards

CompensationStandards.com

The “one stop” resource for information about responsible executive compensation practices & disclosure.

Section16.net

Section16.net

Widely recognized as the premier online research platform providing practical guidance on issues involving Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and all of its related rules.

PracticalESG

PracticalESG.com

Keeping you in-the-know on environmental, social and governance developments

Bloomberg‘s Matt Levine is always thought provoking. Earlier this week, he wrote about 2022 accusations against Wells Fargo that they conducted “fake job interviews for fake diversity purposes.” Following his common theme of “everything is securities fraud,” he analyzes language in Wells Fargo’s 2021 10-K stating that diversity was “in Wells Fargo’s own words, ‘critical to our company’s long-term growth and success.’”

Ultimately, his point is this:

“Wells Fargo was also telling shareholders, right there in its 10-K, that it was ‘dedicated to recruitment and career development practices that support our employees and promote diversity in our workforce,’ and that it had ‘a commitment to increase diverse representation in leadership roles.’ If that wasn’t true, then it was lying to the shareholders. It was lying to shareholders to induce them to buy stock. It was committing securities fraud.”

Just his opinion, of course. Turning to potential damages for which shareholders could sue, Levine points to share price the day before and after the NYT article broke on the fake interviews:

“The stock closed at $42.11 on May 18, the day before the Times report came out, and hit $45.47 on June 7… The shareholders can easily quantify their damages, or at least, they can easily argue for some quantity of damages. That quantity is large: If the fake interviews took $2 off the stock price, then they cost shareholders $7.6 billion. So they can sue for $7.6 billion.”

He backtracks on that somewhat in a footnote, clarifying that it aint’ quite that simple:

“I am exaggerating: They need to argue over the relevant time period and try to isolate the impact of the misstatements from general market and sector moves. You need some expert testimony from an economist, and there will be arguments about how much of an effect this all had. But it’s *relatively* doable.”

In the next blog, I’ll discuss why this should concern anyone involved in drafting climate disclosure language for 10-Ks even though SEC’s climate rule is stayed.

Our members can learn more about sustainability disclosures here.

If you aren’t already subscribed to our complimentary ESG blog, sign up here for daily updates delivered right to you.

Back to all blogs

The Editor

Lawrence Heim has been practicing in the field of ESG management for almost 40 years. He began his career as a legal assistant in the Environmental Practice of Vinson & Elkins working for a partner who is nationally recognized and an adjunct professor of environmental law at the University of Texas Law School. He moved into technical environmental consulting with ENSR Consulting & Engineering at the height of environmental regulatory development, working across a range of disciplines. He was one… View Profile