Facts

On Sept. 5, 2007, Wells Fargo Investments LLC asserted a claim against Eun-Joo Chang, a former Wells Fargo employee, in connection with promissory note agreements dated June 13, 2005, (Note No. 1) and another dated Feb. 13, 2006, (Note No. 2). Chang filed a counterclaim for defamation and other claims in relation to those same transactions and her termination.

CLAIMANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Wells Fargo claimed that Chang breached the agreements by failing to make payments on the promissory notes.

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:
Chang alleged that Wells Fargo was liable for fraud, breach of contract, and defamation. She claimed that she had been entitled to the funds on Note No. 2 six months prior to the actual disbursement date. Had this occurred, she argued, she would have been entitled to forgiveness over that period. Chang also sought expungement from registration records maintained by the Central Registration Depository (CRD) of the phrase "Violated Wells Fargo Workplace Policies," as the stated reason for her termination. She alleged that its inclusion was defamatory.

Damages

On Note No. 1, Wells Fargo sought the principal balance of $244,271 and 4.01 percent interest per year of $805 and additional interest to the date of payment. On Note No. 2, Wells Fargo sought the principal balance of $366,389 and 4.69 percent interest per year of $1,412 and additional interest to the date of payment. It also sought attorney fees and costs and dismissal of the counterclaim. At the close of the hearing, Wells Fargo updated the interest calculation increasing the total sought from $660,852 to $767,923. Chang sought compensatory damages for lost compensation and expungement of her CRD records. She also sought dismissal of Wells Fargo's claim.

Result

The panel found Chang liable for both notes. On Note No. 1, they ordered she pay $244,271 in compensatory damages and interest at a rate of 4.01 percent from the date of the award until the award was paid in full. In light of the disbursement issue, the panel reduced the principal owed on Note No. 2 to $329,750 and ordered interest at a rate of 4.69 percent from the date of the award until the award was paid in full. The panel found in Chang's favor as to her defamation claim and recommended that the stated reason for Chang's termination be expunged for its defamatory nature and replaced with "Employment terminated per contract provisions." Chang's counterclaim otherwise was denied. Requests for punitive damages were denied. Requests for attorney fees were denied because there was no clear prevailing party.

Other Information

ARBITRATORS: Daniel M. Yamshon, Carol Ann Jensen, Alexander L. Mazour.