Lawsuits & Settlements

LOS ANGELES - Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a half-million-dollar settlement with the operator of a sham nursing school in Los Angeles that created “the illusion it was training future nurses” by pretending to offer an accredited nursing program and tricking graduates into believing they had qualified to become registered nurses.

As many as 300 students paid $20,000 each to enroll and attend classes at RN Learning Center, which advertised its fast-track program for earning a bachelor of science degree in nursing in less than two years.

“By creating the illusion it was training future registered nurses,” Brown said, “the school destroyed the aspirations of hundreds of students who also lost thousands of dollars in wasted tuition. The school will shut its doors today and pay back its former students as fully as it can.”

In the settlement negotiated by Brown’s office on behalf of the Board of Registered Nursing, Junelou Chalico Enterina, owner and operator of RN Learning Center, which operated on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles, agreed to close his business and pay victims restitution of $500,000. He also agreed never again to open a nursing school in California.

The board, which is the state agency that oversees the practice and education of nurses, believes no student of RN Learning Center was able to use her degree to qualify for the state’s nursing exam or become a registered nurse. However, the board is contacting every medical facility in the state to warn about unaccredited schools such as RN Learning Center.

The settlement today concludes a board investigation that began in early 2007. Despite purporting to be a nursing school, RN Learning Center never applied to the nursing board to obtain accreditation as a school of nursing. Three years ago, the board ordered the school to close. It also disciplined two licensed registered nurses associated with the school and posted a notice on its website warning prospective students that unaccredited schools were operating in California.

Despite the scrutiny, RN Learning Center continued to operate, targeting mostly Filipino-Americans who already worked in the health field. The school’s marketing materials promised the program would, “Advance Your Education. Increase Your Earnings. Secure Your Financial Future.” Just as they would in a real nursing school, students took classes in anatomy, microbiology and learned to do sutures. They traveled to the Philippines for a month of clinical study in hospitals and prisons, and attended classes at a foreign nursing school that also had not been approved by California’s board.

RN Learning Center kept the deception going by holding formal graduation ceremonies. About 50 of its students applied to the nursing board to take the National Council Licensing Examination, which qualifies nursing school graduates to become licensed registered nurses. The students submitted transcripts that were declared fraudulent, so they were unable to meet the eligibility requirements and were not allowed to take the licensing exam. Because RN Learning Center was unlicensed, none of the course work taken there can be counted toward completing a Bachelor of Science in Nursing.

One student, Faith, described how she applied to RN Learning Center because the class schedule allowed her to also work and juggle childcare. She attended classes for two years, driving 240 miles twice a week from Bakersfield to Los Angeles with her two children. When she raised questions, such as asking about the school’s lack of clinical training, the staff reassured her. “My children, ex-husband, brother, friends and everyone I worked with, can attest to my commitment and sacrifice I made to complete this program,” she said in a declaration. “We the students have lost a lot.”

If you were a nursing student of RN Learning Center, please contact the Attorney General’s Office at (213) 897-2000. For more information about the California Board of Registered Nursing, please see http://www.rn.ca.gov/

OAKLAND – Continuing his fight to ensure the safety of equipment used by children, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today filed a lawsuit against several companies involved in manufacturing children’s bounce houses because some of the inflatable structures contain unsafe amounts of lead.

Testing done by the Center for the Environmental Health and the Attorney General’s office found that some of the vinyl in the bounce houses contains lead levels that violate both federal and state regulations.

“Kids at birthday parties can spend hours playing in bounce houses,” Brown said. “The goal of our lawsuit is to eliminate any chance they will be exposed to lead while they’re jumping around having a good time.”

Bounce houses are large inflatable structures designed for children to play in and on. Facilities that feature indoor inflatables are popular sites for children’s parties, serving millions of children a year. Companies also rent inflatables for use at children’s parties.

In February and March 2010, the Attorney General’s office received notices from the Center for Environmental Health alleging that its testing showed parts of some bounce houses were contaminated with high levels of lead, ranging from 5,000 parts per million (ppm) to 29,000 ppm. Federal limits on lead in children’s products are 90 ppm for painted surfaces and 300 ppm for all other parts.

Today’s lawsuit is intended to force these companies to stop using lead-containing vinyl immediately and to cease selling the lead-containing products. In addition, the action is intended to warn purchasers of these products, and require party places and rental companies to post warnings.

The main exposure pathway from the bounce house to the child is hand-to-mouth. Lead is transferred from the vinyl to a child’s hand during play and then to the mouth.

There is no safe exposure to lead. The tested levels of lead are not high enough by themselves to cause acute health problems, but some people, especially children, who are exposed to lead from a variety of sources can suffer health problems. For that reason, it’s important to eliminate sources of lead whenever possible.

Companies named in the lawsuit include:

Bay Area Jump
Cutting Edge Creations
Funtastic Factory, known as einflatables.com
Magic Jump
Leisure Activities Co.
Thrillworks
The Inflatable Store
Jump for Fun, Inc.
Jump for Fun National, Inc.

In the past year, Brown has initiated several enforcement actions against manufacturers and retailers for lead in products designed for children.

In July, Brown reached a settlement with artificial turf manufacturers to lower lead levels in turf fields and playgrounds. In June, Brown demanded that Rainbow and 5-7-9 stores remove from shelves jewelry with parts containing as much as 97% lead.

Earlier this year, Target removed teddy bears from its stores after Brown notified the company that lead was found in the product. In November 2009, Brown warned several retailers, including Walmart, Sears and Walgreens, to remove several products designed for children that were found to contain excessive levels of lead.

A copy of today’s complaint is attached.

OAKLAND – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a settlement with Sottera, one of the country’s largest electronic cigarette producers, to prevent the company from targeting minors and claiming that electronic cigarettes are a safe alternative to smoking.

"Electronic cigarette companies have targeted minors with fruit-flavored products and misleading claims that their products are safe,' Brown said. 'This settlement will stop Sottera from marketing these dangerous and addictive products to kids.”

Brown and Sottera reached the settlement without litigation based on Sottera’s willingness to adopt measures that address Brown’s concerns about the dangers of its electronic cigarettes. In January this year, Brown filed suit against the nation’s other leading e-cigarette retailer, Smoking Everywhere. That lawsuit is proceeding in Alameda County Superior Court.

Electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, are battery-operated devices with nicotine cartridges designed to look and feel like conventional cigarettes. Instead of actual smoke, e-cigarettes produce a vapor from the nicotine cartridge that is inhaled by the user. Sottera and other electronic cigarette makers have claimed in advertisements and other marketing materials that the e-cigarettes have no carcinogens, no tar, no second-hand smoke, and are therefore safe.

However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that electronic cigarettes contain a variety of dangerous chemicals, including nicotine, carcinogens such as nitrosamines and, in at least one case, diethylene glycol, commonly known as antifreeze.

The products are often marketed with advertisements, and flavors like strawberry, chocolate, mint, banana and cookies-and-cream, that are designed to appeal to a youthful target audience.

Today’s settlement prohibits Sottera from marketing to minors and from making false or misleading claims about electronic cigarettes. Specifically, the company has agreed that it will not:

• Sell electronic cigarettes to minors. Its website will be age-restricted, and a customer will need to provide a government ID before making a purchase. Retail products will be behind a counter. Any advertising will note the age restriction.
• Sell flavored electronic cigarette cartridges, such as strawberry, mint or bubblegum, that could appeal to minors.
• Advertise its product as a smoking cessation device unless the FDA approves it as such.
• Sell cartridges that contain vitamins unless the company obtains competent and reliable scientific evidence to support an implied health claim.
• Claim that the product is safer than cigarettes, contains no tobacco, no tar, no carcinogens or no second-hand smoke unless there is competent reliable scientific evidence to support the claims.

Sottera also agreed to adopt and implement quality control standards for its products to preclude the presence of harmful substances. The company will regularly be subject to independent audits.

Sottera will also provide a Proposition 65 warning that its products contain nicotine, a chemical known by the State of California to cause birth defects or reproductive harm. The warning will include additional information about risks associated with nicotine, including that it is addictive and toxic if swallowed. The warning will appear on product packaging, Sottera’s website and at retail sites.

Sottera will also pay $85,000 in penalties and fees.

A copy of the consent judgment is attached.

PLEASANTON – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and the City of Pleasanton have reached a precedent-setting agreement ending Pleasanton’s restrictions on new housing and opening the way for jobs and new housing to be located close to each other.

“This agreement clears the way for new jobs, less congested freeways and cleaner air,” Brown said. “It requires homes to be built closer to where people work to reduce long commutes and create a more neighborly urban environment.”

Tuesday night, the Pleasanton City Council voted unanimously to accept the agreement.

In 2006, the nonprofit group Urban Habitat filed a lawsuit challenging Pleasanton’s housing cap, which placed a permanent limit of 29,000 housing units in the city. Brown intervened in the case in 2009 and argued the housing cap violated state law by promoting urban sprawl and clogging the freeways with unnecessarily long commutes.

In March 2010, the Alameda County Superior Court ruled in the Attorney General’s favor.

In the settlement approved last night, Pleasanton agreed to remove restrictions on new housing and to accommodate affordable housing adjacent to the city’s BART station. Along with creating jobs and fulfilling the city’s share of regional housing, the new development will enable workers to live within walking distance of a major transit hub.

While Pleasanton has been a magnet for new employment, housing has lagged far behind the number of new jobs, despite ample land for development, including property adjacent to the Pleasanton BART station. In the last decade, the number of new jobs nearly doubled – from 31,683 to more than 58,000. Unable to find affordable housing within the city, some workers were forced to commute two hours per day or more. One study found that 79 percent of workers lived outside of Pleasanton.

Brown has taken an active role in encouraging local governments and businesses to help the state reach its greenhouse gas reduction goals. He has commented on several dozen environmental review documents, including those created for the General Plans of cities and the regional transportation plans of counties, as well as for projects related to oil refineries, cement plants, and dairy expansions. Brown has also reached path-breaking settlements with the County of San Bernardino and the City of Stockton, which required them to develop plans to ensure sustainable growth with a reduced carbon footprint.

SANTA ANA – In a “notable judgment” for victims of violent hate crimes, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. announced that his office has secured a novel civil award against two individuals who targeted a man based on his ethnicity, forced him out of his car and beat him until blood flowed from his ears.

“Victims of crimes inspired by hate deserve every remedy available under the law,” Brown said. “This notable judgment ensures that in California, justice doesn’t stop at the criminal courtroom door.”

The judgment, signed late last week, requires James Joseph Kelly III, 28, of California City and Justin Louis Mullins, 26, of Garden Grove each to pay $25,000 to Felipe Alvarado, 31, whom they brutally assaulted and verbally harassed.

The incident began about 2 a.m. on August 9, 2007 in Garden Grove. As Alvarado waited at a traffic light at the intersection of Magnolia Street and Trask Avenue, Mullins and Kelly pulled up and began verbally harassing him. Alvarado ignored the insults, but on the other side of the intersection, in the parking lot of his workplace, the two men jumped out of their vehicle, forced Alvarado out of his vehicle and dragged him to the pavement. Defenseless, Alvarado was punched, kneed and kicked until blood flowed from his ears.

During the assault, the men insulted Alvarado with ethnic slurs. The beating left him with permanent back pain and hearing loss.

Today’s civil judgment follows criminal convictions in October 2008. Kelly was sentenced to nine months in jail on one count of misdemeanor assault. Mullins was sentenced to three years in state prison for misdemeanor assault, driving under the influence and violating probation.

The civil case marks the first time the Attorney General has filed a case to benefit victims of violent crimes under the Ralph Civil Rights Act, which enables victims of many types of hate crimes to pursue civil penalties in addition to criminal charges. Given the circumstances and brutality of the crimes, Brown decided to pursue a civil case after the defendants were released from confinement.

Victims who believe their rights have been violated under the Ralph Act or any of California’s other civil rights laws, can file a complaint with Brown’s Civil Rights Enforcement Section at http://ag.ca.gov/contact/complaint_form.php?cmplt=PL.

Copies of Brown’s complaint and last week’s judgment, entered in Orange County Superior Court, are attached.

OAKLAND – Continuing his fight to reduce children’s exposure to lead, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a settlement that requires two of the largest makers and installers of artificial turf to eliminate nearly all lead from their products.

“Because schools, public parks and daycare centers use artificial turf, it’s critical that we minimize the amount of lead it contains,” Brown said. “Today’s agreement will get the lead out of artificial turf in playgrounds and ball fields around the state.”

The settlement requires Georgia-based Beaulieu, LLC, the country’s largest supplier of artificial turf to retailers, and Field Turf, USA, the nation’s largest maker and installer of artificial turf fields, to reformulate their products to reduce lead levels to negligible amounts.

The agreement follows a landmark settlement last year with AstroTurf, LLC. Collectively, the three companies control most of the artificial turf market, and their settlements with Brown’s office establish the nation’s first enforceable standards applicable to lead in artificial turf.

Brown brought the case in 2008 against these companies for excessive lead levels after testing by the Center for Environmental Health found high concentrations of lead in their products. Brown’s office confirmed these findings in independent tests.

Today’s settlement requires Beaulieu and FieldTurf to change their products so that they contain less than 50 parts per million lead. Lab results found some artificial turf products with more than 5,000 parts per million, which is more than 10 times state and federal guidelines for content in children’s products. Lead is added to the products to keep colors vibrant.

There is no safe exposure to lead. In lengthy or high exposures, it is toxic to many organs and tissues including the heart, bones, intestines and kidneys. Since excessive exposure can interfere with development of the nervous system, it is particularly dangerous in children and can cause permanent learning and behavior disorders.

Lead in artificial turf usually enters the human body hand-to-mouth. Children playing on it get lead onto their hands and stick them into their mouths. Hand washing is a good way of reducing exposure.

In addition to reformulating their products, Beaulieu agreed to pay for wipe-testing of products in California daycare facilities, schools and playgrounds that were purchased after October 2004. FieldTurf took action in 2003 to reduce lead in its turf products. This settlement requires it to replace turf fields installed in California before November 2003 at a discount if they test high for lead, and also to reduce the lead content of its new products.

The Los Angeles City Attorney and Solano County District Attorney joined Brown in the case against the three companies. AstroTurf paid $170,000 in penalties, grants and fees, and agreed to improve its products. Beaulieu will pay $285,000 and FieldTurf will pay $212,500.

In the past year, Brown has initiated several enforcement actions against manufacturers and retailers for lead in products designed for children.

In June, Brown demanded that Rainbow and 5-7-9 stores remove from their shelves jewelry with parts containing as much as 97% lead. Earlier this year, Target removed teddy bears from its stores after Brown notified the company that lead was found in the bears. In November 2009, Brown warned several retailers, including Walmart, Sears and Walgreens, to remove from their store shelves several products designed for children found to contain excessive levels of lead.

Copies of the artificial turf settlements are attached.

SAN DIEGO – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today filed a lawsuit against mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for blocking an innovative California clean energy program that was designed to create tens of thousands of jobs, promote energy independence and lower utility bills.

“As the nation struggles through the worst recession in modern times, California is taking action in federal court to stop the regulatory strangulation of the state’s grass-roots program that is spreading across the country,” said Brown.

The PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) program stimulates the economy and promotes energy independence by assisting homeowners and small businesses in securing funding to make their properties more energy efficient. Property owners repay the costs of energy improvements through assessments spread out over a decade or more. Under California law, these costs are classified as tax assessments.

Ignoring California law, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have effectively shut down the program by wrongly characterizing PACE assessments as loans that must be subordinate to their own mortgages. The Federal Housing Finance Agency affirmed Fannie and Freddie’s decision on July 6 over the objections of Attorney General Brown and congressional leaders.

For California, the stakes are high. Almost half the counties in California have developed PACE programs or plan to start one. The mortgage giants’ actions have stopped these programs dead in their tracks, destroying job creation, stifling energy independence and hampering California’s economic recovery. Clean energy companies have had to lay off workers, and California risks losing more than $100 million in federal stimulus money.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received enormous federal bailouts,” Brown said, “but now they’re throwing up impermeable barriers to bank lending that creates jobs, stimulates the economy and boosts clean energy.”

One example of the effects of this: San Diego planned to launch a PACE program this summer but it has now been suspended indefinitely, leaving more than 100 people trained in energy retrofits without jobs.

“I believe that the PACE program is critical to stimulating our local and statewide economy,” said San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders. “I’m glad to see this lawsuit filed so that this novel program can continue.”

In his lawsuit, Brown asks the court to apply California law, require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to recognize PACE assessments for what they are, and allow PACE to move California’s economy forward.

The lawsuit is attached to this release. A letter from Attorney General Brown to President Obama is also attached. For a copy of the Attorney General’s letter sent to federal housing regulators in May, please see http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1920&

LOS ANGELES -- Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a settlement with Washington state-based Rena Ware International, Inc., which “made fraudulent and unethical claims” that its high-priced cookware could cure diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. The company agreed to pay more than $600,000 in refunds and other fees.

“This company made fraudulent and unethical claims that its products cured serious diseases,” Brown said. “Their illegal, high-pressure sales tactics preyed on the fears of vulnerable Californians.”

Rena Ware targeted Spanish-speaking immigrants in the Los Angeles-area to sell its high-priced cookware. Sales representatives employed deception to enter people’s homes -- claiming to offer health and nutrition information, to be taking an opinion poll, or to be willing to service the consumer’s current cookware.

Once inside the home, the representatives claimed the consumer’s cookware caused a variety of diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s, diabetes and heart problems. The representatives claimed Rena Ware’s products were not only safe to use but could actually cure some of these diseases.

Consumers who were persuaded to buy the products were often enticed into financing plans with a rate of more than 21% a year. Sales representatives often did not tell consumers they had a three day cooling-off-period to change their minds and cancel the order, a right California law guarantees all consumers who buy products from door-to-door salespeople.

Rena Ware sent consumers harassing debt collection notices purportedly signed by an attorney, but no attorney had signed the notices or seen customers’ files to verify whether the debts were actually owed. The purpose of the notices was sheer intimidation.

In late 2008, a Rena Ware International sales representative went to the home of Mercedes Ballestero in Los Angeles. The representative requested an in-home demonstration to show off Rena Ware’s products and put to shame Ms. Ballestero’s current cookware. The representative claimed Rena Ware’s products could reduce high blood pressure by removing hormones from meat as it cooked. Ms. Ballestero bought a set of Rena Ware cookware for more than $1,500 with a hidden interest rate of 21.5 percent. After discovering the high interest rate, Ms. Ballestero canceled her contract, but the company refused to return her deposit.

Today’s agreement requires Rena Ware to pay $135,400 in penalties, $250,000 in refunds to consumers, and $239,600 in other costs.

Rena Ware must also obtain an independent monitor to ensure the company refrains from using false information or high-pressure sales tactics to lure customers.

Brown’s office was joined in today’s agreement by the Los Angeles County District Attorney. The Los Angeles County Department of Consumer Affairs assisted in the investigation.

In 2008, Brown obtained a judgment against Hy Cite Corporation for similar misrepresentations in the sale of its “Royal Prestige” line of cookware. Hy Cite was required to pay more than $1.3 million in penalties, restitution and costs, agreed to three years of independent monitoring, and forced to change its business practices.

Rena Ware customers who are eligible for a refund will be contacted by mail, and any consumers who feel they have been victimized by Rena Ware International, Inc. or other houseware companies may file a complaint with the Attorney General’s Public Inquiry Unit at www.ag.ca.gov/consumers/general.php, or by calling (800) 952-5225.

Copies of the complaint and settlement, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, are attached.

LOS ANGELES – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a $173 million settlement with six manufacturers of Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) computer chips who “conspired in an illegal global scheme to fix prices.”

DRAM is a common form of memory chip that stores information temporarily for quick access. It is found in desktop computers, laptops, servers, printers and networking equipment such as routers and hubs. DRAM sales to major electronic manufacturers, including Dell, IBM, and Hewlett-Packard, exceed $5 billion a year in the United States and $17 billion worldwide.

“These companies conspired in an illegal global scheme to fix prices on chips used in computer equipment sold to consumers, schools and government offices,” Brown said. “The large price tag of this settlement should serve as a warning that we will crack down on any manufacturers around the world that choose to gouge consumers through illegal price-fixing schemes.”

Brown and 32 other state attorneys general participated in the settlement. In July 2006, the multi-state group, led by California, filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that California’s consumers, state agencies, universities and local governments were forced to pay illegally inflated prices for products containing DRAM chips.

The DRAM manufacturers named in the lawsuit include the American companies Micron Technology, Inc. and NEC Electronics America, Inc., as well as foreign companies Infineon Technologies A.G. in Germany; Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. in South Korea; Elpida Memory Inc. in Japan; Mosel-Vitelic Corp. in Taiwan; and their American subsidiaries.

Brown’s investigation revealed that from 1998 to 2002, the salespeople and upper management of all the companies held frequent meetings, made telephone calls and initiated other contacts in which they exchanged confidential information and agreed to charge customers illegally inflated prices on DRAM chips.

The result of this collusion was to keep DRAM prices artificially high instead of letting market forces operate freely through competition.

The U.S. Justice Department called the scheme “one of the largest cartels ever discovered.” As a result of a federal investigation, four companies ¬-- Samsung, Hynix, Infineon, and Elpida – and 12 individuals have pleaded guilty to criminal price-fixing.

In October 2008, Brown filed a second lawsuit in state court in San Francisco on behalf of 96 local California government entities, including cities, counties, school districts, special districts, and the University of California, all of which had purchased computer equipment containing DRAM chips.

The settlement announced today requires the companies to refrain from illegal price-fixing and to conduct extensive employee-compliance training. The settlement must be approved by the court.

The defendants agreed to resolve both lawsuits, as well as lawsuits by private plaintiffs, by paying $173 million over two years plus interest to the affected consumers, schools and government offices. Samsung and another company, Winbond, reached settlement for $113 million in 2007.

“The settlement money is welcome,” Brown said, “but the illegal overcharging never should have happened in the first place. Especially when times are tight, schools and government agencies can’t afford to be ripped off by companies that violate our anti-trust laws to keep profits high.”

The other states participating in the settlement are Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Copies of the complaints are attached.

SAN FRANCISCO – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown announced today that 3,500 investors, whose holdings in auction rate securities were frozen in the financial crisis of 2008, have recovered $1.4 billion through a settlement the Attorney General hammered out with Wells Fargo affiliates.

“We went to bat for people who believed their investments were like cash,” Brown said, “but discovered after the financial meltdown that they couldn’t get their hands on even a dime of their money for two long years. Now, because of the settlement, they have all of their money back.”

The investors, big and small, included retirees, working families, small businessmen, and charities. Nearly half are Californians, who received $695 million through buybacks of their securities by Wells Fargo.

Many invested in the securities because of assurances they were “like cash” -- safe and liquid. The securities turned out to be neither. Unable to sell the securities, investors were stuck.

More than 90 percent of the owners of the securities elected to take the Wells Fargo buyback offer under the settlement.

“Getting this money back takes a lot of pressure off me,” said Johanna Markley of Newport Beach, who suffers from cancer. “I wondered who would fight for us.”

“I’m retired and over 70 years old,” said William O’Brien of El Dorado County. “It was frustrating to have that money just sitting there for over two years and being unable to access it when we needed it.”

“Getting the investment back has helped save jobs in our company,” said Boris Levine, a San Francisco businessman.

Brown said Wells Fargo was co-operative throughout the repayment process and did what it said it would do.

In November, the Attorney General reached a settlement with Wells Fargo Investments, LLC; Wells Fargo Brokerage Services, LLC; and Wells Fargo Institutional Investors, LLC. The buybacks were made pursuant to that agreement.

Auction rate securities are long-term bonds whose interest rates are adjusted frequently at auction. If there are no takers for the bonds, they can become frozen and effectively worthless.

The Attorney General’s Office has submitted a request for dismissal of its action against Wells Fargo in San Francisco Superior Court, signaling the successful completion of the repayments.