Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04518/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04518-58/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,

Plaintiff,

 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 RE PROPOSED 

CLASS NOTICE

The Court has reviewed the recent joint submission regarding the form, method, and

content of the class notice. The following is hereby ordered. 

• Plaintiff must bear the cost of notice. 

• All class members for whom mail is returned as undelivered must be excluded

from the class.

• The Court believes the description of the lawsuit fails to adequately capture the

essence of plaintiff’s allegations. The Court will require that language along the

following lines be included:

Court-appointed lead plaintiff, Ronald Siemers (“Plaintiff”),

alleges that Wells Fargo had an undisclosed and continuing

practice of extracting excessive advisory and other fees which

were, to the extent of the excess, mere conduits for financing

Case 3:05-cv-04518-WHA Document 366 Filed 06/20/07 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

ongoing distribution. These sham fees were allegedly imposed to

satisfy ongoing revenue-sharing obligations to brokerage houses in

exchange for promoting Wells Fargo mutual funds for the benefit

of Wells Fargo, but not the existing investors. Plaintiff claims that

the sham fees contributed to a high fee structure imposed on

investors and had grown so large as to generate a conflict of

interest that should have been disclosed to investors. Plaintiff

contends that by using vague disclosures, defendants deliberately

intended to suppress the fact that investors’ money was being

siphoned away for secret, unauthorized compensation to brokers to

hype the funds. Defendants vigorously deny these allegations. 

The Court has made no factual findings in the case and it will be

up to plaintiff to prove his allegations.

• The parties must submit a revised proposed form of class notice by JUNE 25,

2007, and a schedule for completing the notice process consistent with the case

management order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04518-WHA Document 366 Filed 06/20/07 Page 2 of 2