Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04518/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04518-62/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD SIEMERS, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WELLS FARGO & CO.,WELLS FARGO

FUNDS MANAGEMENT, LLC, WELLS

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., WELLS

FARGO INVESTMENTS, LLC, STEPHENS,

INC., and WELLS FARGO FUNDS TRUST,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-04518 WHA

ORDER PRELIMINARILY

APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Despite the fact that the settlement is small in comparison to the large amount of work

done in this case, after reviewing the under seal submission by counsel, the Court finds that the

damage figure for any typical investor would be small, after discounting for possibilities of

success. Therefore, even though the settlement amount may well be disappointing to class

members, the amount is at least reasonable enough to warrant preliminary approval and to allow

class members to comment.

The Court does not bless any particular attorney’s fees award, although the proposed

class notice states that plaintiff’s counsel may seek in excess of 30% of the settlement. The

Court would like appropriate input from class members before making any final decision.

Case 3:05-cv-04518-WHA Document 387 Filed 08/03/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

By AUGUST 8, 2007, counsel must meet and confer and submit a proposed schedule that

is calculated to provide ample time for class members to receive their notice, to review the

notice, and to respond as time permits. Please allow an ample schedule that will take into

account the need for intermediaries, such as brokerage firms, to send notice to their customers. 

Please also take into account any changes of address that may need to be processed. Making

such allowances, class members should have 30 days to respond.

Also by August 8, the parties should submit a revised proposal of the language to be

inserted into the prospectus disclosing the revenue-sharing scheme at issue here. The parties

should specify where the proposed language would appear in the prospectuses so that it is not

hidden among other, unrelated material. Additionally, the language should clarify that the

“selling or shareholder servicing agents” referenced are the brokers with whom many investors

regularly deal. Finally, the proposed language states that “the Fund expects to receive certain

marketing or servicing advantages” in exchange for the “Additional Payments.” The language

should clarify that these are not “advantages” to the investors themselves, and are advantages

only to the Fund sponsors.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04518-WHA Document 387 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 2