4 ms·

I can't speak for all libertarians, but I consider myself a libertarian and I can make some observations about this whole situation.. 1. Those customers who we

by Meekro 10y ago

I can't speak for all libertarians, but I consider myself a libertarian and I can make some observations about this whole situation.. 1. Those customers who were stolen from will get to participate in the mother of all class-action lawsuits. The settlement will be outlandish. Juries hate huge corporations that screw the little guy, and the lawyers on both sides know it. If you don't trust the class action to provide you with an equitable settlement, you can opt out and sue them individually. No doubt many lawyers are already lining up for the easy money here. I've never known a libertarian who opposes the existence of a legal system. 2. So far, no one has produced evidence that the CEO knew about this or allowed it to happen. Putting him in prison would therefore be unjust. The article claimed that his sales quotas were excessive, but the only source for that is the same employees who knowingly defrauded their employer. Relying on their honesty seems like a bad idea. What we know for sure is that he had sales targets for his salesmen, which is not unethical or unusual. We also know that the vast majority of Wells Fargo salesmen did not resort to fraud to hit those targets. Even if the sales targets were high, the employees should either step up to the challenge, request a transfer out of sales, or resign. There are no excuses for defrauding your employer, and claiming "my job was too hard, so I lied!" is cause for termination.

pktgen 10y ago
> 1. Those customers who were stolen from will get to participate in the mother of all class-action lawsuits. The settlement will be outlandish. Juries hate huge corporations that screw the little guy, and the lawyers on both sides know it. Nope, since they have a mandatory binding arbitration clause. See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/business/wells-fargo-asks-court-to-force-customers-to-arbitration-in-fake-accounts-cases.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/business/wells-fargo-asks-....
- shawnee_ 10y ago
  "mandatory binding arbitration clause" Wells Fargo hay have put an arbitration clause somewhere buried in their fine print; however, "binding" is what would be questioned by the courts. Probably pretty easy to refute its bind-ability, given that WF has negated and demonstrated incompetence on its side of the contract duty: safeguarding the consumer's info. (Binding contracts require competent parties on both sides). http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitrat...
  - gnicholas 10y ago
    The Supreme Court has upheld binding arbitration agreements in the last few years, and unfortunately "demonstrating incompetence" isn't grounds for voiding this. There's also nothing here to indicate that customers or the bank were not "competent". There are certainly issues with the fraudulent accounts, but the entire relationship with the bank would likely be covered by the arbitration clause from the initial account setup (which the customer agreed to). Customers would have to show something along the lines of fraud in the inducement.
justin66 10y ago
> If you don't trust the class action to provide you with an equitable settlement, you can opt out and sue them individually. No doubt many lawyers are already lining up for the easy money here. You either aren't familiar with what the colloquialism "easy money" means or you are really underestimating the difficultly of going to court against a bank.
rhizome 10y ago
no one has produced evidence that the CEO knew about this or allowed it to happen. He signed his name to the financial reports.
raesene6 10y ago
As to 2. Either the CEO did know, or he should have known. The bank's internal audit teams must have known (they would have reviewed staff activities as they always do for fraud, and the idea that they had missed this for many years isn't tenable) So either the internal audit teams were instructed not to report these issues, or senior management ignored their reports.
adekok 10y ago
> 2. So far, no one has produced evidence that the CEO knew about this or allowed it to happen. http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-on-the-difference-between-a-vice-president-and-a-janitor-2011-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-on-the-difference-... "Somewhere between the janitor and the CEO, reasons stop mattering," says Jobs It's one thing to have one or two departments with illegal incentives. When the entire company is run using illegal incentives, the CEO has to know. Or, he should have known. Quite frankly, the entire executive should be fired for cause, and sued by everyone.
jdhzzz 10y ago
Reminds me of an anecdote from my days working at a medical device manufacturer. The sales person was responsible for assessing hospital stock of the devices they sold as hospital personnel were too busy doing actual work to do so. The sales person would take inventory and leave a purchase order for the hospital to approve. Story goes that one (some?) of the sales people for a competitor (never us) would lift a ceiling tile and chuck inventory up there. "Oh, looks like you are running low on..."

by Meekro 10y ago

pktgen 10y ago

> 1. Those customers who were stolen from will get to participate in the mother of all class-action lawsuits. The settlement will be outlandish. Juries hate huge corporations that screw the little guy, and the lawyers on both sides know it. Nope, since they have a mandatory binding arbitration clause. See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/business/wells-fargo-asks-court-to-force-customers-to-arbitration-in-fake-accounts-cases.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/business/wells-fargo-asks-....

shawnee_ 10y ago
"mandatory binding arbitration clause" Wells Fargo hay have put an arbitration clause somewhere buried in their fine print; however, "binding" is what would be questioned by the courts. Probably pretty easy to refute its bind-ability, given that WF has negated and demonstrated incompetence on its side of the contract duty: safeguarding the consumer's info. (Binding contracts require competent parties on both sides). http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitrat...
- gnicholas 10y ago
  The Supreme Court has upheld binding arbitration agreements in the last few years, and unfortunately "demonstrating incompetence" isn't grounds for voiding this. There's also nothing here to indicate that customers or the bank were not "competent". There are certainly issues with the fraudulent accounts, but the entire relationship with the bank would likely be covered by the arbitration clause from the initial account setup (which the customer agreed to). Customers would have to show something along the lines of fraud in the inducement.

justin66 10y ago

> If you don't trust the class action to provide you with an equitable settlement, you can opt out and sue them individually. No doubt many lawyers are already lining up for the easy money here. You either aren't familiar with what the colloquialism "easy money" means or you are really underestimating the difficultly of going to court against a bank.

rhizome 10y ago

no one has produced evidence that the CEO knew about this or allowed it to happen. He signed his name to the financial reports.

raesene6 10y ago

As to 2. Either the CEO did know, or he should have known. The bank's internal audit teams must have known (they would have reviewed staff activities as they always do for fraud, and the idea that they had missed this for many years isn't tenable) So either the internal audit teams were instructed not to report these issues, or senior management ignored their reports.

adekok 10y ago

> 2. So far, no one has produced evidence that the CEO knew about this or allowed it to happen. http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-on-the-difference-between-a-vice-president-and-a-janitor-2011-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-on-the-difference-... "Somewhere between the janitor and the CEO, reasons stop mattering," says Jobs It's one thing to have one or two departments with illegal incentives. When the entire company is run using illegal incentives, the CEO has to know. Or, he should have known. Quite frankly, the entire executive should be fired for cause, and sued by everyone.

jdhzzz 10y ago

Reminds me of an anecdote from my days working at a medical device manufacturer. The sales person was responsible for assessing hospital stock of the devices they sold as hospital personnel were too busy doing actual work to do so. The sales person would take inventory and leave a purchase order for the hospital to approve. Story goes that one (some?) of the sales people for a competitor (never us) would lift a ceiling tile and chuck inventory up there. "Oh, looks like you are running low on..."