Feds seek to ditch settlement over alleged redlining with North Jersey bank
The Trump administration is asking a judge to drop a 2022 settlement the Justice Department had reached with North Jersey-based Lakeland Bank — which was later absorbed by Provident Bank — over allegations of redlining against Black and Hispanic customers.
While Provident Bank said it will continue to provide low-cost mortgages to underserved communities, the motion by the U.S. Justice Department to abandon the settlement has drawn the ire of community advocates and legal experts, who say it would make it easier for banks to engage in redlining.
'It goes without saying it's a good thing when financial institutions are complying with those consent orders, but when you take away the teeth — the actual enforcement — who's to say that they will continue to comply,' said Leila Amirhamzeh, director of community reinvestment for New Jersey Citizen Action, a consumer advocacy group.The four-page motion by the Justice Department, filed May 28 in U.S. District Court, seeks to terminate the consent order the Biden administration negotiated with what was then Lakeland Bank.
In the initial complaint, the Justice Department said Lakeland violated the federal Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act by deliberately avoiding banking with Black and Hispanic customers, particularly in and around Newark.
The discrimination in question allegedly took place between 2015 and 2021, according to the Biden administration.
To settle the complaint, Lakeland agreed to pay $12 million to subsidize mortgages, home improvement loans and home refinancing loans for Black and Hispanic residents and open two branches in underserved neighborhoods.
Lakeland also had to provide $150,000 a year for advertising, outreach and consumer finance education in the Newark area.
Newark Mayor and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ras Baraka wanted one of those new branches to be in his city, and the Greater Toms River Chamber of Commerce also wanted a branch in its area.
According to the Provident Bank website, there are currently four locations in Newark and three in Toms River.
After acquiring Lakeland, Provident took ownership of the settlement and the mandate to open two branches in underserved areas of New Jersey.
The Justice Department in its motion to terminate the order said Lakeland reached substantial commitment to comply with the consent agreement and it is committed to continuing its disbursement of the loan subsidy.
Provident spokesperson Keith Buscio told NorthJersey.com and the USA TODAY Network New Jersey that the bank remains committed to the loan subsidy initiative. He said Provident is not a party to the litigation and referred other questions to the Justice Department.
The Justice Department could not immediately be reached for comment.
Baraka's office in Newark said it is planning to hold a press conference about the motion by the Justice Department on June 5.
Court filings show two attorneys who helped file the initial complaint against Lakeland, Michael Campion and Susan Millenky, withdrew as counsel from the case. Campion was appointed in 2022 to lead the U.S. Attorney's Office's Civil Rights Division that was created to enforce federal civil rights laws in New Jersey.
The Fair Housing Act was passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 to prohibit landlords and mortgage lenders from discriminating based on race, religion, national origin or sex.
Nearly 60 years later, racial wealth disparity remains vast. In New Jersey, the median household wealth of white families is $322,500, compared with $17,700 for Black families and $26,100 for Hispanic families, the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice said.
In New Jersey, 77.3% of white residents owned a home in 2020. By comparison, 42.8% of Black residents and 32.7% of Hispanic residents were homeowners, according to the Urban Institute, a research group.
Critics said the Justice Department's motion to drop the Lakeland settlement is a step by the Trump administration's bid to reverse diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
David Troutt, a professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark, said the motion by the Justice Department to terminate the consent decree is part of a larger campaign by the department to rescind investigations and agreements involving anti-Black racism, while beginning investigations into what it deems 'illegal DEI.'
'The Trump administration's withdrawal from a federal consent decree without justification is an extraordinary act of endorsing racist practices and housing market manipulation,' Troutt said.
'For the very government that successfully enforced those borrowers' civil rights to now repudiate them sends a message unlike any we've seen since the federal government first endorsed redlining in the 1930s,' Troutt said.
Lakeland isn't the only New Jersey bank that faced scrutiny under the Biden administration. Toms River-based OceanFirst Financial Corp. agreed to pay $14 million to subsidize mortgages, helping settle a lawsuit that alleged the bank violated federal discrimination laws.
Since then, it has improved the rating given by federal bank regulators who oversee investments in underserved communities to 'outstanding.'
The Justice Department hasn't filed a motion seeking to terminate the consent order with OceanFirst. But two attorneys who represented the U.S. in the initial complaint, Millenky and Nathan Shulock, have filed motions to withdraw from the case, according to the court docket.
A combined 22 Provident and Lakeland branches closed in 2024 following the $1.3 billion merger creating a 'super community bank.' Each branch that closed was within roughly three miles of a nearby branch.
Activists and opponents warned that the merger would mean fewer banking services would be available for underserved communities, such as people of color, the elderly and disabled.
New Jersey Citizen Action applauded Provident for its continued commitment to the terms of the consent order. But the group said the Justice Department should continue to enforce it.
'When you actually terminate these consent orders, there's no deterrence, and it's basically telling financial institutions that the Department of Justice is going to be taking a hands-off approach to fair lending issues, to redlining,' New Jersey Citizen Action's Amirhamzeh said.
Daniel Munoz covers business, consumer affairs, labor and the economy for NorthJersey.com and The Record.
Email: munozd@northjersey.com; Twitter:@danielmunoz100 and Facebook
Michael L. Diamond is a business reporter for the Asbury Park Press. He has been writing about the New Jersey economy and health care industry since 1999. He can be reached at mdiamond@gannettnj.com.
This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: Feds seek to drop Lakeland Bank settlement over alleged redlining
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says he's 'disappointed' with Musk after former backer turned on the Republican tax bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Thursday he's 'disappointed' with Elon Musk after his former backer and advisor lambasted the president's signature bill. Trump suggested the world's richest man misses being in the White House and has 'Trump derangement syndrome.' The Republican president reflected on his breakup with Musk in front of reporters in the Oval Office as Musk continued a storm of social media posts attacking Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' and warning it will increase the federal deficit. 'I'm very disappointed in Elon," Trump said. 'I've helped Elon a lot.' Musk has called Trump's big tax break bill a 'disgusting abomination.' The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lack of documentation can be fatal when claiming expenses on taxes
One of the practical pieces of tax advice that I continuously dole out to clients, friends and family members each year is the critical importance of keeping receipts for any deductions or credits you plan to claim on your tax return. While this goes without saying for obvious items such as charitable donations and eligible medical expenses, it's perhaps even more important to keep receipts of other expenses, such as employment or business expenses, that you plan to deduct on your return to lower your final tax bill. Depending on your tax bracket, those receipts can be worth more than 50 cents on the dollar. Consider the self-employed, high-income earning Vancouver-based IT consultant who spent $1,000 in airfare to visit a client in 2025. At her top marginal tax rate of 53.5 per cent, hanging on to that receipt could save her $535 in real hard cash taxes that she otherwise would have to remit to the Canada Revenue Agency by April 30, 2026. That's why I encourage anyone who claims employment or business expenses to carefully track them and keep those receipts. That can be done 'old school,' by physically hanging on to the relevant receipts and filing them in a paper folder for tax season. Alternatively, many of us are now in the habit of taking a picture of the receipt (or scanning it) and saving the receipts in an online 'tax folder', by year, stored virtually in the cloud, so that these receipts are all together in one place come tax time. If you incur substantial business or employment expenses each year, I would go so far as to recommend a separate credit card so that you can easily segregate your work expenses from your personal expenses, especially when it comes to some retail purchases that could be either. For example, was that recent Staples purchase tax-deductible office supplies or a large back-to-school stock-up for the kids? The importance of keeping receipts to justify your expenses came up yet again in a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal released late last month. The issue before the appellate court was whether the lower Tax Court erred in disallowing additional deductions for motor vehicle expenses incurred by the taxpayer in connection with his employment. While it was clear that the taxpayer travelled for work and qualified for various employment expense deductions permitted under the Income Tax Act, the Tax Court concluded that the deductions should not be allowed because the taxpayer did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the amount that should be deductible. I first wrote about this case last year, so before reviewing the decision of the appellate court, here's a brief summary of the facts. The taxpayer was appealing reassessments of his 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 taxation years in which the CRA reduced or denied certain expenses claimed in each of those years. The taxpayer, a visiting registered nurse, was simultaneously employed by four separate employers in 2015 and three separate employers in 2016, 2017 and 2018. His job was to provide nursing services to individuals in their own homes or in a retirement or nursing home. During the tax years under review, he provided nursing services six days one week and four days the next week on a rotating basis. Each week included two or three seven-hour night shifts during which he was on standby for patients who required urgent care. The night before each workday, his employers would provide a schedule of the patients he was to visit the following day. The taxpayer estimated he visited between 10 and 30 patients during a day shift, and he worked an average of 40 to 45 hours per week, plus the two to three seven-hour night shifts. Each employer paid the taxpayer a fixed amount for each patient visit, regardless of the nursing services provided. He travelled daily from his south-central Ontario community to visit patients in the Greater Toronto Area. The taxpayer deducted various automobile expenses in each year, which were denied. Under the Income Tax Act, to be able to deduct vehicle expenses as an employee, you must normally be required to work away from your employer's place of business or in different places, and you must be required to pay your own automobile expenses, as certified on Form T2200, Declaration of Conditions of Employment. In addition, you must not be the recipient of a 'non-taxable' allowance for motor vehicle expenses. An allowance is considered non-taxable when it is solely based on a 'reasonable' per-kilometre rate. The taxpayer may have been entitled to claim some of these as valid expenses, but he was unable to supply any evidence to back up the expenses he had claimed. He testified he had previously provided the records to the CRA by registered mail, but the CRA never received them, and he was unable to provide any backup documentation in court. This proved to be fatal for the taxpayer's claim in Tax Court. 'Maintaining books and records is an ongoing obligation in a self-assessing system and the taxpayer's failure to do so … made it impossible for him to meet the evidentiary burden … to demolish the (CRA's) assumptions' about the denied expenses,' the lower court judge wrote, citing a prior case. The taxpayer appealed the Tax Court's decision to the Federal Court of Appeal, which heard the case at the end of May. The three-judge panel of the appellate court considered whether the taxpayer had provided sufficient evidence as to the amount of his expenses to justify a deduction on his return. The taxpayer tried to argue that, notwithstanding having any receipts or backup documentation, he was found to be a 'credible witness' by the Tax Court judge, and thus his testimony as to the amount of expenses he had incurred and claimed on his tax returns should simply be believed. The appellate court disagreed, writing, 'it was not a matter of disbelieving him; it was a matter of the (taxpayer) failing to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the amounts claimed were in fact deductible.' How spousal RRSPs can reduce taxes without getting you in trouble Have you made a mistake or need to change your tax return? Here's how Bottom line – you could be the most honest, believable and trustworthy taxpayer, with a perfect record of tax compliance stretching back decades. But, if you are unable to back up your tax deductions with hard evidence, you are unlikely to be successful in the face of a CRA review. Jamie Golombek, FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Estate Planning with CIBC Private Wealth in Toronto. If you liked this story, in the FP Investor newsletter.
Boston Globe
12 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Stablecoin bigwig Circle set to make its debut on the New York Stock Exchange
Interest in Circle's initial public offering is high. The company's underwriters priced the offering at $31 per share Wednesday, up from an expected price of $27 to $28. The number of shares being sold was raised to 34 million from 32 million. Circle will trade on the NYSE under the symbol 'CRCL.' The shares had not opened for trading as of midday. A view outside the New York Stock Exchange on June 5. Richard Drew/Associated Press Advertisement The dominant player in the stablecoin field is El Salvador-based Tether, which has the stablecoin known as USDT that currently has about $150 billion in circulation. USDC is the second most popular stablecoin market cap, with about $60 billion in circulation. Circle said in a regulatory filing that USDC has been used for more than '$25 trillion in onchain transactions' since its launch in 2018. Revenue-wise the company has seen tremendous growth, going from just $15 million in 2020 to $1.7 billion in 2024. Stablecoin issuers make profits by collecting the interest on the assets they hold in reserve to back their stablecoins. Circle said USDC is backed by 'cash, short-dated US Treasuries and overnight US Treasury repurchase agreements with leading global banks.' Advertisement Circle's IPO comes amid a push by the Trump administration and the crypto industry to pass legislation that would regulate how stablecoin issuers operate in the US. A Senate bill There is also growing competition in the stablecoin field. A crypto enterprise partly owned by the Trump family just launched its own stablecoin, USD1. Circle said its long track record and values – the company says its mission statement is 'to raise global economic prosperity through the frictionless exchange of value' – will help it stand apart in the field.
