Skip to main content

Wells Fargo’s latest troubles come just 10 months after regulators disclosed that bank employees had been opening potentially millions of accounts in its retail banking division without customers’ permission for over a half decade.

Cooper Neill/Bloomberg

Wells Fargo & Co., already in the regulatory spotlight because of last year's fake-account scandal, is drawing renewed scrutiny after a lawyer's unauthorized release of sensitive client details for tens of thousands of accounts belonging to wealthy customers of its brokerage unit.

Regulators have started asking questions about the breach, according to a person with knowledge of the matter, after the data was mistakenly provided to an attorney as part of a lawsuit involving two brothers, one a Wells Fargo employee and the other a former employee. A person briefed on the matter said Wells Fargo has determined the accounts were all from one brokerage branch in the northeastern United States.

Representatives of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority informally contacted at least one of the attorneys involved in the dispute for information about how the breach occurred and how Wells Fargo failed to detect it, said the person, who asked not to be identified because the matter isn't public. Lawyers for the bank are taking steps to contact regulators about the data breach, according to another person with knowledge of the matter.

Story continues below advertisement

Related: Wells Fargo ordered to pay $575,000, reinstate whistleblower

Ray Pellecchia, a spokesman for Finra, which licenses and supervises Wall Street workers, including financial advisers, didn't have an immediate comment. Judith Burns, a spokeswoman for the Securities and Exchange Commission, declined to comment. Representatives for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency didn't immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

"Thoroughly investigate"

While this latest black eye may not rise to the level of the retail-bank debacle, it further calls into question Wells Fargo's ability to manage its people and information.

"Wells Fargo takes the security and privacy of our customers' information very seriously," the bank said in a statement. "We are currently taking legal action to ensure the additional data is not disseminated, and we are requesting its rapid return. We continue to thoroughly investigate this matter and will take the proper steps, including corrective action, based on the outcome of our investigation."

The bank's latest troubles come just 10 months after regulators disclosed that Wells Fargo employees had been opening potentially millions of accounts in its retail banking division without customers' permission for over a half decade. The bank's stock valuation and reputation were tarnished, and Wells Fargo has spent at least $520-million (U.S.) on fines, remediation, consultants and civil litigation since then, including a near-final $142-million to consumers who accused the bank of creating bogus accounts.

Insufficient oversight

Story continues below advertisement

The OCC, the bank's main regulator, said in September Wells Fargo had "failed to provide sufficient oversight" of its sales programs and didn't adequately monitor employees in its retail bank. Part of the consent order the OCC forced the bank to carry out afterward included beefing up internal controls and risk management.

The recent data breach began with a financial spat between a pair of brothers over less than $1-million. Gary Sinderbrand, a former managing director at Wells Fargo Advisors, is engaged in two legal actions against his older brother Steven Sinderbrand, a managing director at the bank, one in New York and one in New Jersey.

Lawyers for Gary Sinderbrand received client names, Social Security numbers and account balances earlier this month for 50,000 Wells Fargo accounts, The New York Times first reported, including one file with details on the holdings of a "well-known hedge fund billionaire" with at least $23-million invested.

Protective order

The trove of confidential client data was sent by attorney Angela Turiano of law firm Bressler, Amery & Ross, who's representing Wells Fargo in both of the disputes. Ms. Turiano sent the information without a protective order or confidentiality agreement between the parties.

Ms. Turiano, who indicated that an outside vendor was involved in the information breach, asked the information be returned when Gary Sinderbrand's attorneys informed her of the breach this week, The New York Times reported. Ms. Turiano didn't return messages for comment on Saturday.

Story continues below advertisement

Gary Sinderbrand's lawyers had been seeking documents related to a squabble over allegedly unpaid fees for a consulting arrangement with his brother. Mr. Sinderbrand alleges Wells Fargo knew about and approved of a verbal arrangement that he provide risk-management and client-retention coaching to his brother Steven, while Gary Sinderbrand took a two-year sabbatical from managing wealthy clients' money. The New York dispute is over what Gary Sinderbrand alleges is roughly $870,000 more he's owed from 50 per cent of fees his brother made managing their joint book of client business over a period of about two years.

Andrew Miller and Aaron Zeisler, attorneys for Gary Sinderbrand, either declined to comment or didn't immediately return messages on Saturday. The brothers didn't return messages seeking comment.

John Heinzl discusses why dividends are the foundation of his investing strategy, and should be part of your strategy as well.
Report an error
Tickers mentioned in this story
Unchecking box will stop auto data updates
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter