Reading Time: 5 Minutes

Welcome to the Pride,

Every week, we review 200+ insurance articles to highlight three events that have caught our attention. This week is special. We're bringing you an edition focused on one critical issue for financial institutions:

Heightened board oversight and the potential for "mission-critical" claims.

We dive deep into the recent Wells Fargo court decision and its far-reaching implications for board oversight.

We'll explore this landmark case in three parts:

1. What transpired in the Wells Fargo shareholder claim?
2. How did the court respond to the allegations?
3. What critical insights can boards glean from this case?

Let's dive into it:

Part 1: What transpired in the Wells Fargo shareholder claim?

In 2022, shareholders of Wells Fargo filed a derivative lawsuit against the bank's directors.

The lawsuit emerged after reports alleging racial disparities in Wells Fargo's mortgage refinancing practices. So plaintiffs alleged the board failed to comply with fair lending laws (source).

The crux of their argument?

The board failed in its duty to oversee fair lending practices - a "mission critical" aspect of the bank's operations, this failure, they contended, amounted to a breach of the directors' fiduciary duties.

So far, so good

Part 2: How did the court respond to the allegations?

Historically, proving that directors breached their duty of oversight has been an uphill battle for plaintiffs.

Not so in the Wells Fargo case.

In a move that could reshape the corporate governance landscape, the federal court allowed the shareholders' claims to proceed (source). The judge found sufficient evidence to suggest the directors may have indeed neglected their oversight responsibilities.

This decision is significant because it signals a potential shift in how courts approach oversight claims, known as "Caremark" claims.

The Wells Fargo ruling, along with recent similar decisions against the boards of Abbott Laboratories and Boeing, suggest courts may be more receptive to these claims, particularly when they involve "mission critical" aspects of a company's business.

“It’s hard to know if the Wells Fargo and Abbott decisions are mere outliers or early signals that federal judges are sympathetic to Caremark claims. In journalism, the old saying is that three examples make a trend. We’ve got two."

Allison Frankel, Reuters* (source)

These developments build on a line of cases dating back to the Delaware Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Marchand v. Barnhill, which have increasingly sustained plaintiffs' assertions of breaches of the duty of oversight.

Part 3: What critical insights can boards glean from this case?

Time for our favorite part:

So What?

So what does this mean for financial institution boards?

The implications are profound and far-reaching.

Here are our 5 main takeaways:

1. Heightened Scrutiny of "Mission Critical" Oversight The Wells Fargo case underscores that courts will hold boards accountable for overseeing areas deemed essential to a company's operations. For banks, fair lending undoubtedly falls into this category. Boards must ensure robust monitoring systems are in place, going beyond mere discussions of risk.
2. The Elusive Definition of "Mission Critical" However, the precise contours of what constitutes "mission critical" remain murky. This ambiguity leaves boards vulnerable, like the vague contract language we often see in insurance policies that creates disputes later. They must thoughtfully define and vigilantly demonstrate oversight of these core areas. Failure to do so could expose directors to liability.
3. The Looming Specter of Legal Precedent The Wells Fargo decision, coupled with the Abbott Laboratories and Boeing cases, suggests a disturbing trend. Just one more similar ruling could solidify legal precedent, effectively raising the bar for board oversight across the nation. The personal liability risk for directors has never been higher.
4. A Call to Action for Boards In light of these developments, complacency is not an option. Boards must act decisively to:
   • Thoroughly understand these cases and their potential ramifications
   • Strengthen compliance procedures, particularly in key risk areas like fair lending, product safety, and cybersecurity
   • Meticulously document their oversight activities to demonstrate proactive monitoring
5. Navigating the New Normal The oversight landscape is shifting beneath our feet. Boards that fail to adapt risk costly litigation and reputational damage. Proactive, robust governance is no longer a best practice; it's a necessity.

Areas ripe for enhanced board vigilance include:

• fair lending
• consumer protection
• product safety and quality control
• data privacy
• cybersecurity

…as well as any other aspect of the business that could be deemed "mission critical."

This unclear definition of "mission critical" is troublesome.

It’s like the vague contract language we often see in insurance policies that creates disputes later.

We’re helping our clients assess their board-level oversight processes. We review compliance frameworks and benchmark against best practices. Don’t wait for a lawsuit to force action – contact us today for a confidential risk assessment.

The Bottom Line

The Wells Fargo ruling is a clarion call for financial institution boards.

The stakes are high, and the margin for error is slim. Boards must move swiftly to fortify their oversight practices before the legal landscape shifts any further

Want to share this edition via text, email or social media? Simply copy-and-paste the link below:

​www.lionspecialty.ck.page/posts/wells-fargo-directors-sued-as-it-happened-in-3-parts​

And if you got this newsletter forwarded, you can subscribe here.

Stay covered,

Natasha & Mark

Co-Founders and Managing Partners,

LION Specialty