Shortly after WFC picked up the ball Citi dropped and scooped up Wachovia, shareholder Irving Ehrenhaus sued both banks on the grounds Wells didn’t offer a fair price for the quickly collapsing bank. Other Wachovia shareholders undoubtedly thought they would have a shot at a better deal through the suit. Based on the amount of time and effort spent in this battle, you’d think news of a settlement would be good news for Team WB. But shareholders are now up in arms again after learning the terms of settlement would award Ehrenhaus’ lawyers with about $2 million while they would be treated to a slightly lesser amount.

In that proposal, which Judge Diaz will consider Aug. 20, shareholders of the former Wachovia would not receive any monetary compensation. But Wells Fargo would pay $1.975 million to Ehrenhaus’ lawyers, led by a New York firm called Wolf Popper, “for their efforts in achieving the benefits of the settlement.” …The proposed settlement also says that other former Wachovia shareholders would be barred from filing any future lawsuits related to the deal

Lady Justice isn’t blind. She’s just doubled over in laughter at this one.

Comments (7)

  1. Posted by guest | August 12, 2009 at 3:15 PM

    Ouch. Cruel.

  2. Posted by guest | August 12, 2009 at 3:23 PM

    DB has been El Stinko lately. Get your shit together, or else I’ve got to get serious about finishing that ship in a bottle.

  3. Posted by Seaman Bodine II | August 12, 2009 at 3:23 PM

    They should be happy. It’s much worse to win a settlement, and then spend 10 years in appeals, arguing over attorney fees.

  4. Posted by guest | August 12, 2009 at 3:44 PM

    perhaps the lawyers fees should be submitted to Feinberg. He did administer the SEC v AIG $800m settlment – he should be impartial right?

  5. Posted by guest | August 12, 2009 at 4:14 PM

    “Shortly after WFC picked up the ball Citi dropped and scooped up Wachovia” – revise (awk)

  6. Posted by guest | August 12, 2009 at 4:50 PM

    this belongs over at ATL

  7. Posted by guest | August 12, 2009 at 7:43 PM

    shareholders that were not part of the class action (i dont know if that means people who actively opted out or people who opted in) are not part of the settlement and it cant affect them legally. its like you and me agreeing that some other guy doesn’t owe you money. its a due process violation
    the settlement means that parties to the suit wont be able to sue again. that’s standard-b/c whats the point of settling if the guy can sue you again for the same thing.
    –obvious

Leave a comment

You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.