One who intends to leave others better off for his having existed.

11/25/14

Wells Fargo refused to provide information concerning Envision plans created by William Spivey and Envision plans supervised by William Spivey and Aaron Landry

In the Matter of; George Hartzman, Complainant, v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC., Respondent, Case No. 2013-SOX-00045 with the United States Department of Labor, Office of Administrative Law Judges, presided over by Judge Kenneth A. Krantz, Wells Fargo refused to provide answers to Interrogatories #1(a) – (k) and 2(a) – (k).

These Interrogatories request information about the Envision plans created by William Spivey and Envision plans supervised by William Spivey and Aaron Landry, who personally terminated Complainant.

These Interrogatories relate to details of created Envision plans that financially benefited William Spivey and Aaron Landry, who personally terminated Complainant for disseminating information as to how Landry and Spivey helped financial advisors, under their direct supervision, including Complainant and William Spivey for his own clients, mislead Wells Fargo clients under Landry and Spivey's direct supervision.

The subject of the email sent on September 10, 2012 cited by Respondent as cause for Complainant's termination concerned Envision Plans created without including charged investment costs in projected minimum client goals for Wells Fargo clients.

It was my understanding before October 8, 2012, that William Spivey personally profited from Envision plans created for his clients without including charged investment costs in detailed long term projected minimum financial goals for his clients, for Spivey to qualify for Wells Fargo's 4front bonus.

It was Complainant's understanding before October 8, 2012, Spivey's Envision plans were annually updated without charged fees included in detailed long term projected minimum financial goals for his clients, which were and may still be included on Spivey's client statements.

Complainant contends Messrs. Spivey and Landry personally terminated Hartzman for disseminating information detailing how Spivey misled his clients, and how Landry and Spivey personally benefited from supervising financial advisors including Complainant, into misleading clients.

It was Complainant's understanding before October 8, 2012, that William Spivey and Aaron Landry personally profited/financially benefited by advocating and promoting their financial advisor workforce under Spivey and Landry's direct supervision, in the creation of Envision plans without including charged investment costs in detailed long term projected minimum financial goals for clients supervised by Landry and Spivey, including Complainant's and Spivey's, to qualify Spivey, and financial advisors supervised by Spivey and Landry, for Wells Fargo's 4front bonus.

It was Complainant's understanding before October 8, 2012, William Spivey and Aaron Landry  reviewed updates to the initially fraudulently created Envision plans without initiating actions to remove misleading long term projected minimum financial goals placed on monthly client statements, including Complainant's and Spivey's, and those supervised by Landry and Spivey.

On September 7, 2012, in front of 25 to 40 financial advisors at the Hyatt Regency St. Louis at The Arch, Greg Shiveley, Envision Sales Manager at Wells Fargo Advisors, said “There are 441,942 households with Envision Plans of Record.” and “The overwhelming majority of Envision Plans do not include investment costs."

Complainant asked for, and Wells Fargo refused to provide, Envision plan details directly related to what appears to be a motivation for retaliatory actions concerning Complainant's termination by Spivey and Landry, for Envision plans directly connected to Landry and Spivey.

Complainant alleges his statements about these Envision Plans constituted protected activity under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and that Wells Fargo terminated him in retaliation for making said statements.  Information and facts responsive to these Interrogatories are probative as to Respondent’s motivation for terminating him.

Wells Fargo refused to provide the discoverable, probative information within Interrogatories #1(a) – (k) and 2(a) – (k).  The answers to Interrogatories #1(a) – (k) and 2(a) – (k) would provide a "causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action taken”, of which “Discovery may disclose evidence on such issues" in Case No. 2013-SOX-00045.
.
.
Interrogatory 1; William Spivey

A; Please provide the number, inception and update dates of Envision plans created to qualify for [payment via] Wells Fargo Advisors' 4front program, [between January 1, 2009 and October 8, 2012],

B; how many of the plans included investment costs and how many plans did not,

C; how many plans were updated with and without investment costs included,

D; how many household investment portfolios were adjusted to match Envision plan asset allocation recommendations within 90 days after inception,

E; how many household investment portfolios were adjusted to match Envision plan asset allocation recommendations within 90 days after being updated,

F; how many of the accounts with Envision plans created to qualify for Wells Fargo Advisors' 4front program were governed by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940,

G; how many of the accounts with Envision plans created to qualify for Wells Fargo Advisors' 4front program governed by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 were created without investment costs included,

H; how many of the accounts with Envision plans created to qualify for Wells Fargo Advisors' 4front program, governed by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 were updated without investment costs included,

I; how many accounts with Envision plans created to qualify for Wells Fargo Advisors' 4front program governed by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 were created without the related accounts being adjusted to match the plan's asset allocation recommendations within 90 days of the creation,

J; how many accounts with Envision plans created to qualify for Wells Fargo Advisors' 4front program governed by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 were updated without the related accounts being adjusted to match the plan's asset allocation recommendations within 90 days after the plans were updated,

K; and how many accounts with Envision plans created to qualify for Wells Fargo Advisors' 4front program governed by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 were created and updated without the related accounts being adjusted to match the plan's asset allocation recommendations within 90 days after the plans were updated,

by or for William Spivey, for William Spivey’s clients.
.
.
Interrogatory 2; William Spivey and Aaron Landry

A; Please provide the number, inception and update dates of Envision plans created to qualify for [payment via] Wells Fargo Advisors' 4front program, [between January 1, 2009 and October 8, 2012],

B; how many of the plans included investment costs and how many plans did not,

C; how many plans were updated with and without investment costs included,

D; how many household investment portfolios were adjusted to match Envision plan asset allocation recommendations within 90 days after inception,

E; how many household investment portfolios were adjusted to match Envision plan asset allocation recommendations within 90 days after being updated,

F; how many of the accounts with Envision plans created to qualify for Wells Fargo Advisors' 4front program were governed by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940,

G; how many of the accounts with Envision plans created to qualify for Wells Fargo Advisors' 4front program governed by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 were created without investment costs included,

H; how many of the accounts with Envision plans created to qualify for Wells Fargo Advisors' 4front program, governed by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 were updated without investment costs included,

I; how many accounts with Envision plans created to qualify for Wells Fargo Advisors' 4front program governed by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 were created without the related accounts being adjusted to match the plan's asset allocation recommendations within 90 days of the creation,

J; how many accounts with Envision plans created to qualify for Wells Fargo Advisors' 4front program governed by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 were updated without the related accounts being adjusted to match the plan's asset allocation recommendations within 90 days after the plans were updated,

K; and how many accounts with Envision plans created to qualify for Wells Fargo Advisors' 4front program governed by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 were created and updated without the related accounts being adjusted to match the plan's asset allocation recommendations within 90 days after the plans were updated,

for Wells Fargo Advisors’ clients by Wells Fargo Advisors’ employees supervised by  William Spivey and Aaron Landry.
.
.
Wells Fargo refused to provide information concerning Envision plans created by William Spivey and Envision plans supervised by William Spivey and Aaron Landry

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2014/11/wells-fargo-refused-to-provide_25.html

Wells Fargo refused to provide information concerning Brian Mixdorf's internal investigation into George Hartzman's Ethics Line filings

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2014/11/wells-fargo-refused-to-provide.html

ROBERT K. STEEL and the President's Working Group

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2014/11/robert-k-steel-and-presidents-working.html

Wachovia CEO Robert Steel False Certifications and Zion Bank's fine filing, with some Matt Taiibi


http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2014/11/18-us-code-1343-fraud-by-wire-radio-or.html

No comments: