Connect with us

Business

36 Hours After Russell Vought Took Over Consumer Bureau, He Shut Its Operations

Published

on

36 Hours After Russell Vought Took Over Consumer Bureau, He Shut Its Operations

The day before Linda Wetzel closed on her retirement home in Southport, N.C., in 2012 — a cozy place where she could open the windows at night and catch an ocean breeze — the bank making the loan surprised her with a fee she hadn’t expected. Ms. Wetzel scoured her mortgage paperwork and couldn’t find the charge disclosed anywhere.

Ms. Wetzel made the payment and then filed an online complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The bank quickly opened an investigation, and a month later, it sent her a $5,600 check.

“My first thought was ‘thank you.’ I was in tears,” she recalled. “That money was a year or two of savings on my mortgage. It was my little nest egg.”

Ms. Wetzel’s refund is a tiny piece of the work the bureau has done since it was created in 2011. It has clawed back $21 billion for consumers. It slashed overdraft fees, reformed the student loan servicing market, transformed mortgage lending rules and forced banks and money transmitters to compensate fraud victims.

It may no longer be able to carry out that work.

Advertisement

President Trump on Friday appointed Russell Vought, who was confirmed a day earlier to lead the Office of Management and Budget, as the agency’s acting director. Mr. Vought was an author of Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for upending the federal government that called for significant changes, including abolishing the consumer bureau.

In less than 36 hours, Mr. Vought threw the agency into chaos. On Saturday, he ordered the bureau’s 1,700 employees to stop nearly all their work and announced plans to cut off the agency’s funding. Then on Sunday, he closed the bureau’s headquarters for the coming week. Workers who tried to retrieve their laptops from the office were turned away, employees said.

The bureau “has been a woke & weaponized agency against disfavored industries and individuals for a long time,” Mr. Vought wrote Sunday on X. “This must end.”

Created by Congress in the aftermath of the housing crisis that set off the Great Recession, the consumer bureau became one of Wall Street’s most feared regulators, with the power to issue new rules — and penalize companies for breaking them — around mortgages, credit cards, student loans, credit reporting and other areas that affect the financial lives of millions of Americans.

The bureau’s actions made it a lightning rod for criticism from banks and Republican lawmakers — and put it squarely in the Trump administration’s cross hairs.

Advertisement

The agency’s foes have long called for its elimination, which only Congress has the power to do. Elon Musk, the billionaire leader of a government efficiency team that has created havoc throughout the federal government, posted “CFPB RIP” on his social media platform X on Friday. A few hours earlier, his associates had gained access to the consumer bureau’s headquarters and computer systems.

The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents the bureau’s employees, filed a lawsuit against Mr. Vought on Sunday night. Granting Mr. Musk’s team access to employee records violated the Privacy Act, the 1974 law regulating how the government handles individuals’ personal information, the union said in its complaint, which was filed in federal court in Washington.

Agency workers fear their employment data could be used for online harassment or “to blackmail, threaten or intimidate them,” the complaint said. Workers are also concerned about disclosure of their personal health or financial details, the union added.

The union filed a second lawsuit against the acting director over his efforts to freeze the agency’s work. Mr. Vought’s orders illegally infringe, the union said, on “Congress’s authority to set and fund the missions” of the consumer bureau.

Representatives of the consumer bureau and the budget office did not respond to requests for comment.

Advertisement

During the first Trump administration, when Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress, lawmakers failed to amass enough votes to abolish the agency. Some have indicated that they would like to try again. Senator Bill Hagerty, a Tennessee Republican who serves on the Senate Banking Committee, called the bureau a “rogue agency” on Sunday on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.”

“It’s been basically a reckless agency that’s been allowed to go way beyond any mandate that I think was originally intended,” Mr. Hagerty said. “It’s time to rein it in.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, who fought for the agency’s creation and who describes herself as its “mom” on her X biography, has spent the last decade battling attempts to dismantle the consumer bureau.

“President Trump campaigned on helping working families, but Russ Vought just told Wall Street that it’s open season to scam families,” she said Sunday in a written statement. “What Vought is doing is illegal and dangerous, and we will fight back.”

Many of the agency’s actions have directly affected Americans’ pocketbooks. Its rules overhauled the mortgage market, curbing the kinds of subprime loans that set off the housing crisis. Pressure from the bureau led major banks to reduce or eliminate their overdraft fees, and a recently finalized rule would cap most of those fees at $5.

Advertisement

The agency recently adopted rules to eliminate medical debt from credit reports and limit most credit card late fees to $8 or less per month, but lawsuits have delayed those rules from taking effect.

“It’s striking to me that people’s economic dissatisfaction created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and people’s economic dissatisfaction created Trump,” said Shayak Sarkar, a law professor at University of California, Davis.

Mr. Trump’s team has given priority to attacks on specific agencies — like U.S. Agency for International Development and the consumer bureau — that serve vulnerable populations, Mr. Sarkar said, while throwing “a lot of federal support and cheering” at agencies like Immigration Customs and Enforcement, which has intensified its immigration crackdowns.

While the bureau cannot be shuttered without congressional action, its director has the power to radically alter its approach. During Mr. Trump’s first term, he appointed Mick Mulvaney — then the director of the budget office Mr. Vought now leads — as the bureau’s acting director. Mr. Mulvaney called the agency a “joke” in “a sick, sad kind of way” and sharply curtailed its enforcement actions and rule making work.

The agency’s powers have swung like a pendulum. It moved aggressively when Democrats held the White House but pulled back during Mr. Trump’s first term. Mr. Mulvaney and his Trump-appointed successor, Kathleen Kraninger, put the bureau into a kind of hibernation, gutting rules that would have wiped out much of the payday lending market and slashing the bureau’s enforcement actions.

Advertisement

But several current agency employees, who spoke confidentially for fear of retribution, said Mr. Vought’s order on Saturday stretched beyond what occurred during the last Trump administration.

His instruction to “cease all supervision and examination activity” caused particular alarm. While other federal agencies — including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — also oversee banks, the consumer bureau is the sole regulator for nonbank lenders. Those companies hold a large share of the $13 trillion mortgage market.

Mr. Vought also said he intended to cut off the consumer bureau’s funding, which comes directly from the Federal Reserve, outside the usual congressional appropriations process. The agency’s budget for the 2025 fiscal year calls for around $800 million in annual spending, and the Fed transferred $245 million to the bureau in January to fulfill its latest request.

Mr. Vought wrote on X that he had told the Fed that the bureau would not be taking its next funding draw “because it is not ‘reasonably necessary’ to carry out its duties.”

Adam Levitin, a professor at Georgetown Law who specializes in financial regulation, said on Sunday that Mr. Vought’s orders might be illegal. Some of the federal laws that govern the consumer bureau order it to supervise specific entities, and that work does not appear to be discretionary, he said.

Advertisement

The acting director “has the ability to seriously hobble the C.F.P.B. through a bunch of slow bleeds, but he’s trying to skip all the necessary steps and just go for an immediate death blow,” Mr. Levitin said. “He may not have the legal ability to actually do that, but I’m not sure how much that’s going to matter. A lot of the way the Trump administration has been dealing with regulatory agencies is just kind of a blitzkrieg tactic, where a key component is creating fear, uncertainty and chaos.”

A rally on Saturday outside the bureau’s headquarters, organized by its staff union, drew a few hundred participants. A Maryland resident, who asked that her name be withheld for fear of retribution from Mr. Trump’s allies, attended with her husband, a federal worker, to support the agency’s employees.

“I don’t think people understand what the C.F.P.B. does,” she said. “The administration said they’re closing it because of fraud, but the bureau’s literal job is to protect people from fraud and junk fees and predatory lenders.”

Ms. Wetzel, the retiree who used her $5,600 refund to replace the floors in her new home, said the quick action on her complaint made her feel empowered.

“It was such a relief to have the government saying what the bank did was wrong, that this is not the rule of law,” she said.

Advertisement

Business

Landmark downtown apartment tower faces foreclosure

Published

on

Landmark downtown apartment tower faces foreclosure

A landmarked downtown Los Angeles apartment building designed by famed Los Angeles architect John Parkinson is on the market as its owners face foreclosure.

Residences in the Metropolitan, a 10-story tower built in 1913, are nearly filled with tenants but its ground floor retail spaces on Broadway and 5th Street are unoccupied, as are other street-level stores in downtown’s Historic Core.

The historic building was once considered one of the best in the city and is owned by the Fallas family, which operated a chain of value-priced clothing stores based in Gardena including one called Fallas Paredes in the Metropolitan.

Fallas-Paredes at 449 S. Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90013.

(Google Maps)

Advertisement

Around 2011, Michael Fallas, who once worked in family’s downtown store as a stock boy, converted the upstairs floors from offices to apartments while continuing to operate Fallas Paredes. The store closed more than five years ago in the wake of a 2018 filing by its parent company for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Earlier this month in state Superior Court, a special servicer representing Fallas’ lender asked for a judicial foreclosure of the property, alleging that Fallas had stopped making payments on a $32 million loan dating to 2017. After leasing the property for years, Fallas bought the building in the 1990s.

Fallas didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The location of the Metropolitan where the buildings stands was hailed in a Times story in 1912, saying “it is regarded by many realty men as the most valuable piece of real estate in Los Angeles.”

Advertisement

The building today is recognized as a city historic-cultural monument because “Broadway became the commercial center of the Southland, a title it retained until well after World War II,” with its development, the city said. One of the architects who designed the Metropolitan in the Beaux-Arts style was John Parkinson, who is credited with designing such well-known local structures as City Hall, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and Union Station.

Notable tenants in the Metropolitan have included the Los Angeles Public Library, Owl Drug Co., variety store J.J. Newberry and real estate company Janns Investment Co., which sold the land where UCLA is built and developed Westwood Village, among other Los Angeles neighborhoods.

In recent years, the buildings around the Metropolitan have struggled to keep retail tenants after a spurt of residential conversions of historic buildings starting in the early 2000s brought commerce to the neighborhood. Many downtown businesses have struggled since the pandemic reduced occupancy in offices downtown and reduced the flow of visitors.

“The lack of bodies on the street is generally hurting downtown, and that’s one of the reasons that has building has problems,” said downtown real estate broker Hal Bastian, who lives in the Historic Core.

There are close to 1,000 residential units in historic buildings at the intersection of Broadway and 5th Street, Bastian said, but all the ground floor stores are closed. Drug stores there suffered substantial losses from shoplifting he said, and now, “our challenge on Broadway is leasing.”

Advertisement

The 88 apartments in the Metropolitan are 91% rented, according to a listing for the property by the Zacuto Group, which also touts its roof deck with pool, fitness center and barbecue grills. No sale price is set.

Continue Reading

Business

January 2025 wildfire victims seek tougher penalties against State Farm over claims handling

Published

on

January 2025 wildfire victims seek tougher penalties against State Farm over claims handling

A fire survivors’ group announced Thursday it was seeking tougher penalties against State Farm over its handling of January 2025 wildfire claims.

The Every Fire Survivor’s Network said it was petitioning to join a state enforcement action announced this year against the company to make sure the case results in meaningful changes at California’s largest home insurer.

“We’re seeking a systematic review of all their claims and penalties calibrated to the actual scale of the harm — and we’re seeking the payouts that families are owed,” said Joy Chen, executive director of the group, at a Pacific Palisades news conference joined by victims of the fires.

The Department of Insurance in May filed an administrative action against State Farm General — the subsidiary of the giant Bloomington, Ill., insurer that handles California home insurance — after completing a “market conduct” exam.

Advertisement

The Jan. 7, 2025, fire damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.

State Farm has received more January 2025 claims than any other insurer — more than 13,700 auto and homeowners claims as of May 4, with payouts totaling $5.7 billion, according to the company.

The market conduct exam looked at 220 sample claims filed by the victims and found 398 violations of state law in about half of them.

Among other alleged violations, it found that the company failed in numerous cases to pursue a “thorough, fair and objective investigation” into claims, failed to come to “prompt, fair, and equitable settlements” and made settlement offers that were “unreasonably low.”

In announcing the action, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara called the company’s claims handling “unacceptable” and said his department was taking “decisive action to hold them accountable.”

Advertisement

The state is seeking a “cease and desist” order to stop the insurer from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices.

It also has threatened to suspend State Farm’s license over the alleged violations, which each carry a penalty of up to $5,000 — or twice that figure if found to be willful. That could amount to a penalty of $2 million or more.

The threat to actually suspend State Farm’s license and its authority to write policies has been viewed skeptically by some, given its roughly 20% market share of the state’s home insurance market.

The company, which had an opportunity to include its responses in the exam report, denied fault in some cases and admitted fault in others. It often blamed problems on individual adjusters and denied systemic issues with its claims handling.

The petition filed by the wildfire survivor’s group criticizes the sample size of the market conduct exam as too small to capture all the alleged deficiencies in State Farm’s claims handling, which it claims are a “general business practice” of the company.

Advertisement

The group is seeking to conduct discovery, cross examine witnesses, present testimony from fire victims and bring more that 1,600 firsthand policyholder statements regarding State Farm’s practices into evidence, according to the petition.

It also wants State Farm to reopen cases in which claimants were paid too little, and it is seeking to participate in settlement discussions in order to increase any penalty State Farm would pay.

It calculated that a $2-million penalty would amount to a minute fraction of the assets of the State Farm Group.

“I submit to you that doesn’t defer bad conduct, it just allows you to continue to do it,” said Michelle Meyers, an attorney for Every Fire Survivor’s Network, at the news conference.

Consumer Watchdog, which has been a harsh critic of State Farm, also is providing legal support for victims’ effort.

Advertisement

Sevag Sarkissian, a spokesperson for State Farm, said the company was aware of the petition.

“We recognize that many wildfire survivors, including those that are State Farm General policyholders, continue to face difficult recovery challenges,” he said. “Our focus remains on helping customers recover.”

Michael Soller, a spokesperson for Lara, said the department is “acting with urgency to assist wildfire survivors in their ongoing recovery by investigating formal complaints filed by survivors and conducting the expedited market conduct exam that led to this enforcement action.”

He added that the department’s position is the state’s Administrative Procedure Act does not contemplate the commissioner or department staff authorizing intervention requests in the case.

He said that would be a hearing officer’s or administrative law judge’s decision when one is assigned to the case.

Advertisement

Meyers acknowledged the request was novel but said her reading of the law is that Lara can make the decision because no judge is yet assigned.

In response to the criticism, State Farm pledged earlier this year to improve its claims handling, including by providing single points of contact and improved communication so there are “fewer handoffs, fewer repeated explanations, and seamless support.”

It also named a new vice president of customer relations for State Farm General.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Uber, California lawyers say deal reached to avert dueling ballot initiative showdown

Published

on

Uber, California lawyers say deal reached to avert dueling ballot initiative showdown

The state’s trial attorneys and Uber say they have reached a last-minute deal to scrap their dueling ballot measures and avert what was gearing up to be one of most expensive battles of the November election.

The deal, which comes a day after both measures qualified for the November ballot, has Uber agreeing to bulk up safety measures, while the trial attorneys will limit how much they can claim for lien-based medical treatment of victims who get in Uber or Lyft accidents, according to spokespeople for both sides of the campaign.

“Both sides agree: Californians deserve a system that’s safe, fair, and accountable,” read a joint statement from Uber and the Consumer Attorneys of California, a powerful attorney trade group. “This agreement protects patients from unnecessary treatment or getting overcharged, ensures access to medical care and legal representation, and strengthens safety measures.”

The agreement, finalized Thursday, means the ride-share giant will kill its ballot measure to cap how much attorneys can earn in vehicle collision cases and limit medical damages to rates based on insurance. Uber has argued that the costs for medical treatment done on a lien, which allows doctors to get paid from a cut of the plaintiff’s payout, far exceed what it would cost if the victim had used their own insurance.

In return, the Consumer Attorneys of California will cancel its competing ballot measure that sought to increase legal liability for ride-share companies if a passenger is sexually assaulted by a driver. The measure followed an investigation by the New York Times into sexual assault by drivers.

Advertisement

Both sides had poured tens of millions into the campaigns, plastering billboards across Los Angeles.

Lawyers claimed the fight had turned existential with the measure threatening to decimate the profit margin of many personal injury cases and leave drivers with small or thorny cases unable to find an attorney willing to take their case.

Spokespeople say the deal is predicated on their agreement being codified into a bill within the next week. Otherwise, they said, each side will move forward with its ballot measure.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending