Becker v. Wells Fargo & Co.

Background

The named plaintiffs and Wells Fargo & Company, the Employee Benefit Review Committee, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association entered into a class-action settlement agreement dated March 8, 2022. The court had previously granted preliminary approval, approved the proposed notices, appointed Analytics Consulting, LLC as settlement administrator, appointed EagleBank as escrow agent, and scheduled a fairness hearing.

The settlement class consisted of all persons who were participants in the plan at any time from March 13, 2014, through the date the settlement became final. Members of the Employee Benefit Review Committee during that period were excluded. The notice described the claims, settlement terms, releases, proposed attorneys’ fees and expenses, case-contribution awards, objection procedures, and the right to appear at the fairness hearing.

Notice and Class Response

The court found that the notice was implemented as ordered, was the best notice reasonably practicable under the circumstances, adequately informed class members, and satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process. Twenty-one class members responded in some form, but no class member objected to the settlement, and no objections or concerns were communicated to the parties, counsel, the settlement administrator, or the court. The court also found that the notice required by the Class Action Fairness Act had been satisfied.

Settlement Approval

After considering the parties’ filings and the arguments at the August 10, 2022, fairness hearing, the court approved the settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). It found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the settlement class. The court found that the class had been adequately represented, the settlement was negotiated vigorously and at arm’s length, the case had advanced significantly, continued litigation would involve expense and uncertainty, and the $32,500,000 monetary recovery was fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The court also finally approved the plan for allocating the settlement funds. Analytics Consulting was directed to administer the plan and distribute the net settlement fund after settlement-administration expenses. The court found that the distribution method was efficient and equitable and required no claims filing.

Dismissal, Releases, and Final Judgment

As of the settlement’s effective date, the court dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted against the defendants by the named plaintiffs and the settlement class. “With prejudice” means those claims could not be brought again. The settlement and judgment also bound the defendants, plaintiffs, class members, and specified successors and representatives, and released the claims covered by the agreement.

The court entered a permanent bar preventing persons and entities from bringing claims for recovery, contribution, indemnification, or damages allegedly arising from the released claims. It retained continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over settlement administration, enforcement, the settlement funds, fee and expense requests, the settlement class, the bar order, and interpretation and enforcement of the judgment. The clerk was directed to enter final judgment and close the case. The judgment would become void if the settlement’s effective date did not occur or the settlement was terminated as provided in the agreement.