Contract Dispute Implicating Wells Fargo Data to be Arbitrated

Share This Post:

A contract dispute between Wells Fargo Advisors LLC and its former Managing Director, Gary Sinderbrand, was ordered into arbitration by New York State Judge Charles E. Ramos. In doing so, Judge Ramos preserved an existing injunction precluding Sinderbrand from disclosing additional customer information that Wells Fargo had unintentionally released when responding to a subpoena.

Sinderbrand tried to bring the case to a close by submitting to the court a concise notice of discontinuance of the suit comprised of breach of contract and unjust enrichment allegations. During a subsequent hearing, Wells Fargo filed an objection to Sinderbrand’s notice of discontinuance, claiming there was a pending motion to compel arbitration and as such, a stipulation or separate motion was required to terminate the suit.

Sinderbrand’s counsel claimed that while Wells Fargo had succeeded on an August 2017 motion to prevent additional dissemination of customer information, and there was still a pending motion to compel arbitration, Sinderbrand retained the right to discontinue the claim as a motion to dismiss had not been submitted. Since a motion to compel arbitration is not a responsive pleading, Sinderbrand’s attorney argued that the case is not currently before the court and discontinuance should be permitted accordingly.

Counsel for Wells Fargo had earlier contended that the precedent established in the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. litigation, in addition to Sinderbrand’s arrangement with Wells Fargo, collectively mandated that all disputes be settled via arbitration. Wells Fargo’s attorney further informed Judge Ramos that the bank had in fact submitted a substantive response and requested him to deny the discontinuance, stay the case, and order the proceedings into arbitration.

Judge Ramos subsequently decided to stay the case for arbitration and kept the injunction intact.

Gary Sinderbrand originally obtained the customer information at issue—which contained names, Social Security numbers, account data, assets, addresses, and loan totals—in response to an external discovery request as part of a defamation claim filed in a New Jersey Superior Court against his elder brother, Steven Sinderbrand.

A subsequent case in a New York Supreme Court identifies the older Sinderbrand, who is a managing director at Wells Fargo Advisors, in allegations of breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Questions about this article? Reach out to our team below.
RELATED

Offshore Capital Concerns: A Tactical Guide for U.S. Lenders and Fund Sponsors

Raising capital from offshore investors can unlock valuable funding opportunities for U.S. lenders and real estate funds, but it comes with added layers of tax, compliance, and regulatory complexity. From ECI exposure and withholding tax risks to strict AML/KYC requirements, sponsors must navigate challenges that go far beyond basic securities law. This article outlines key risks and practical structuring strategies, including the portfolio interest exemption and feeder-blocker models, to help sponsors attract international capital while minimizing tax burdens and compliance pitfalls.

Converting Rule 506(b) Offerings to Rule 506(c): Considerations for Fund Managers

The SEC’s 2025 clarification on Regulation D Rule 506(c) is prompting many issuers to reconsider their reliance on Rule 506(b). While the shift offers greater flexibility in solicitation, it also introduces new complexities, particularly around accredited investor verification and transitioning existing offerings. Understanding these requirements is key to maintaining compliance and avoiding operational challenges.

California’s Anti-Deficiency Rules: What Lenders Can Recover — and Where Guaranties Fit

California’s anti-deficiency statutes can significantly limit what lenders recover after a real estate loan defaults. While the rules appear straightforward, recovery rights often depend on factors such as the foreclosure method, the nature of the loan, and the structure of any guaranties. Understanding how statutes like the “one-action rule,” purchase-money protections, and trustee’s sale restrictions interact is essential for lenders evaluating their options. This article explains the framework of California’s anti-deficiency laws and examines when guaranties remain an effective path for recovery and when courts may view them as an impermissible attempt to bypass borrower protections.