WHEREAS, on January 16, 2019, the parties in the above-captioned action (the “Parties”) filed a Joint Case Management Statement & Notice of Settlement, notifying the Court that the Parties had reached an agreement in principle to settle the action and were finalizing the terms of a settlement agreement, and requested that the Court set a briefing and hearing schedule on Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for preliminary approval of the forthcoming settlement agreement and set aside all other dates in the action (Dkt. No. 266); WHEREAS, on January 21, 2019, the Court set the following deadlines requested by the Parties relating to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and vacated all other deadlines in the action (Dkt. No. 267): Event Deadline to file motion for preliminary approval of settlement agreement Deadline February 14, 2019 Deadline to file opposition to motion for preliminary approval February 28, 2019 Deadline to file reply to any opposition to motion for preliminary approval March 7, 2019 Hearing on motion for preliminary approval March 21, 2019, at 2:00 p.m.

to finalize the terms of the settlement agreement, but are still working to resolve certain issues related to the anticipated settlement agreement; WHEREAS, given the large number of parties and the complexity of the issues involved, the Parties agree that they require additional time to complete negotiations in order to finalize the anticipated settlement agreement, and therefore agree that extending the deadlines relating to Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement will assist in facilitating resolution of the action;1

1 The Parties have not previously sought to modify the deadlines relating to Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for preliminary approval, but previously have sought and been granted the following time modifications by the Court: (i) on January 23, 2017 (Dkt. No. 78) the Parties requested to continue a case management conference; (ii) on October 13, 2017 and November 10, 2017 the Parties filed stipulations concerning the deadline to answer the complaint in this action (Dkt. No. 175; 182); (iii) on August 23, 2018, Plaintiffs requested to vacate a deadline regarding the

WHEREAS, because all deadlines in this action have been vacated, save for those relating to Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, the time modifications requested by the Parties below will not affect the schedule for the case except as set forth below.

I, Brendan P. Cullen, in compliance with General Order 45, Section X(B), hereby attest that I obtained the concurrence of all of the above-listed counsel in filing this document.

1593692.5 WHEREAS, in September 2016, several shareholder derivative actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking relief under federal and state law for the alleged misconduct by current and former Wells Fargo & Company (“Wells Fargo” or the “Company”) officers and directors arising from the opening of customer accounts without customer knowledge or authorization (the “Unauthorized Sales Practices”); WHEREAS, the Court consolidated those related actions, and on January 12, 2017, the Court appointed the Fire and Police Pension Association of Colorado and the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System as Lead Plaintiffs in In re Wells Fargo & Co.

Practices—including Plaintiff Feuer’s initial demand on the Company’s Board of Directors, dated December 12, 2016 (Feuer Compl.

¶ 176, Ex. A)—are intended to provide background information only, and Plaintiff Feuer does not base his claims for relief on allegations related to the Unauthorized Sales Practices; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, between the undersigned parties, by and through their counsel, as follows:

The Feuer Complaint does not, and shall not be construed to, assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of loyalty, and breach of the duty of candor to the extent such claims involve the Unauthorized Sales Practices or have been asserted in the Lead Action, and Plaintiff Feuer will not seek and expressly waives his right to assert claims for any relief involving the Unauthorized Sales Practices, including damages, in connection with the Feuer Action.

I, Richard M. Heimann, in compliance with General Order 45, Section X(B), hereby attest that I obtained the concurrence of all of the above-listed counsel in filing this document.

This Document Relates to:

LEAD CASE NO. 4:16-cv-05541-JST Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(d), Co-Lead Plaintiffs Fire and Police Pension Association of Colorado and the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System respectfully submit this Statement of Recent Decision in support of Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Against Objector Kevin Fisher and His Counsel (ECF No. 329).

On August 6, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion in Pearson v. Target Corp., No. 19-3095 (7th Cir.), which reversed and remanded a district court order denying a motion for disgorgement of payments made to objectors.

A copy of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

LEAD CASE NO. 4:16-cv-05541-JST Dated: August 7, 2020

Now before the Court is Plaintiffs Fire and Police Pension Association of Colorado and the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System’s (the “Lead Plaintiffs”) motion to consolidate the related shareholder derivative action Hannon v. Loughlin, No. 3:17-cv-07236-JST (N.D. Cal.

As Hannon concedes, his claims against Wells Fargo are substantially similar, and in some cases identical, to those brought in the Consolidated Action.

Second, there is good reason to believe that Hannon II’s counsel’s dominant purpose in adding claims against American Express was simply to escape the Court’s prior order of consolidation and enlarge their role in the litigation.

The same plaintiff, and the same plaintiff’s counsel, previously agreed to consolidation, and now bring claims against American Express based on information that was publicly available when they filed their first complaint.

Lead Counsel has acknowledged that they will not pursue the American Express claims at this time if the cases are consolidated because they have insufficient information as of now to believe they are meritorious.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WHEREAS, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Individual Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) on October 4, 2017; WHEREAS, the current deadline for answering the Amended Complaint is November 17, 2017; WHEREAS, counsel for the parties have conferred and agreed, subject to Court approval, to extend the Individual Defendants’ deadline to answer the Amended Complaint to January 8, 2018; and WHEREAS, the parties agree that this new deadline is appropriate in this case given the length of the Amended Complaint and the large number of Individual Defendants represented by numerous different law firms.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, between the parties, by and through their Counsel, that the Individual Defendants’ deadline for answering the Amended Complaint shall be extended to January 8, 2018.

Attorneys for Defendants John D. Baker II, Elaine L. Chao, John S. Chen, Lloyd H. Dean, Elizabeth A. Duke, Susan E. Engel, Enrique Hernandez, Jr., Donald M. James, Cynthia H. Milligan, Federico F. Peña, James H. Quigley, Judith M. Runstad, Stephen W. Sanger, Susan G. Swenson, and Suzanne M. Vautrinot

Attorneys for Co-Lead Plaintiff The City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System and Co-Lead Counsel

I, Lisa Valenti-Jordan, in compliance with General Order 45, Section X(B), hereby attest that I obtained the concurrence of all of the above-listed counsel in filing this document.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WHEREAS, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Individual Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) on October 4, 2017.

WHEREAS, counsel for the parties have conferred and agreed, subject to Court approval, to extend the Individual Defendants’ deadline to answer the Amended Complaint to November 17, 2017.

WHEREAS, the parties agree that this new deadline is appropriate in this case given the length of the Amended Complaint and the large number of Individual Defendants represented by numerous different law firms.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, between the parties, by and through their Counsel, that the Individual Defendants’ deadline for answering the Amended Complaint shall be extended to November 17, 2017.

I, Lisa M. Valenti-Jordan, in compliance with General Order 45, Section X(B), hereby attest that I obtained the concurrence of all of the above-listed counsel in filing this document.