Tag Archives: Sofia D. Martos

In Global First, the United Kingdom Moves Toward Mandatory Climate-Related Disclosures by 2025

by Mark S. Bergman, Ariel J. Deckelbaum, Brad S. Karp, Elizabeth M. Sacksteder, Scott P. Grader, Frances F. Mi, William J. O’Brien, David G. Curran, and Sofia D. Martos

On November 9, 2020, a UK taskforce chaired by HM Treasury and made up of UK regulators and government officials (the “Taskforce”) published the Interim Report of the UK’s Joint Government-Regulator TCFD Taskforce (the “Interim Report”), along with a roadmap to achieving its recommendations (the “Roadmap”).[1] The Interim Report concluded that the United Kingdom should move towards mandatory TCFD-aligned disclosures across all sectors of the UK economy over the next five years. The Roadmap presents a five-year timeline of planned or potential regulatory actions or legislative measures across seven categories of organizations: listed commercial companies; UK-registered large private companies; banks and building societies; insurance companies; asset managers; life insurers and regulated pension schemes; and occupational pension schemes. The UK Government expects a significant portion of mandatory requirements to be in place by 2023.

Continue reading →

Wells Fargo Reaches Resolutions with DOJ and SEC for $3 Billion, Agrees to a Deferred Prosecution Agreement

by Jessica S. Carey, Michael E. Gertzman, Roberto J. Gonzalez, Brad S. Karp, and Sofia D. Martos 

On February 21, 2020, Wells Fargo & Company and its subsidiary, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively, “Wells Fargo”), entered into resolutions with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) requiring Wells Fargo to pay a combined $3 billion in penalties in connection with its improper sales practices. Of this amount, $500 million would be received by the SEC for distribution to harmed investors. Specifically, Wells Fargo entered into:

  • a three-year Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the “DPA”) with DOJ, in which it admitted to two criminal violations—creating false bank records and identify theft;[1]    
  • a settlement agreement with DOJ that resolves civil claims under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) based on the false bank records conduct;[2] and
  • a cease-and-desist order with the SEC[3] to settle allegations that it misled investors about the “success of its core business strategy at a time when it was opening fake accounts for unknowing customers and selling unnecessary products that went unused.”[4]

Continue reading →