Business News
"Shell Oil Company disregarded the state's underground fuel storage and hazardous waste laws, committing hundreds of environmental violations at its gasoline stations across California," Brown said. "This judgment requires the company to pay $19.5 million in penalties, comply with state law and improve its spill monitoring, employee training and hazardous waste management."
In 2006, the Attorney General's Office launched a statewide investigation into Shell and its gasoline stations after the San Diego and Riverside County District Attorneys settled cases with the company following numerous underground fuel storage violations.
Working with the California State Water Resources Control Board, the Attorney General's Office investigated more than 1,000 Shell gasoline stations throughout California, including numerous stations in Sonoma County and some Napa County stations as well.
The investigation uncovered hundreds of violations at the company's gasoline stations. For example:
– In February 2007, an inspector discovered that a Shell gasoline station located at 4355 Pacheco Blvd. in Martinez failed to properly maintain the required leak detection monitoring system for its gasoline tanks. The Shell station is located next door to the office of the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Program.
– In May 2006, an inspector discovered that a Shell gasoline station located at 7899 Greenback Lane in Citrus Heights, 20 miles northeast of Sacramento, failed to properly maintain spill alarms for its gasoline tanks. Inspectors observed similar violations in October 2005, September 2003 and April 2003.
– In August 2005, an inspector discovered that a Shell gasoline station located at 12398 Los Osos Valley Road in San Luis Obispo failed to maintain the required leak detection monitoring system for its gasoline tanks.
– In March 2005, an inspector discovered that a Shell gasoline station located at 30245 Agoura Road in Agoura Hills failed to properly conduct and maintain secondary containment testing and monitoring for its gasoline tanks. The inspector also found liquid and hazardous substances in the containment sump. Shell's own inspector found liquid in the sump on previous visits to the station.
The judgment requires Shell, its subsidiaries, corporate parents, affiliates and successors to pay $19.5 million in civil and administrative penalties and immediately comply with state underground fuel storage and hazardous waste statutes, regulations and permits.
The company must also take immediate steps to improve spill and alarm monitoring, employee training, hazardous waste management and emergency response at its gasoline stations by:
Implementing a "smart" monitoring system with programmable sensors to monitor for fuel leaks and other environmental alarms;
Utilizing a continuous remote alarm monitoring, diagnosis and notification system;
Providing annual compliance and emergency response training sessions to employees, contractors, consultants, retailers and operators;
Implementing risk management software systems to drive improved underground storage tank compliance;
Working with a third-party contractor to manage and oversee hazardous material business plans and underground storage tank monitoring response plans;
Working with a third-party contractor to provide onsite underground storage tank permitting, registration and testing services;
Completing a health, safety, security and environmental checklist to monitor, assess and address compliance issues; and
Maintaining an underground storage tank equipment database and checklist.
The $19.5 million judgment includes: $7.8 million in civil and administrative penalties to district attorneys and regulatory agencies; $5 million in civil penalties to the Attorney General's Office; $5 million in civil and administrative penalties to the California State Water Resources Control Board; $700,000 to fund the Sacramento County Abandoned Well Restoration Project; $500,000 to the California Climate Action Registry; $400,000 in investigative costs and attorneys' fees to the Attorney General's Office; and $100,000 in investigative costs to the California State Water Resources Control Board.
- Details
- Written by: California Attorney General's Office
LOS ANGELES – Concerned about a "new wave" of foreclosures, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today has called on 10 major banks and loan servicers to detail their plans to assist homeowners facing dramatic monthly payment increases on pay option adjustable rate mortgages.
"Homeowners with Pay Option ARMs are sitting on ticking time bombs that the lending industry has the power to defuse," Brown said. "Unless these banks and loan servicers act quickly, hundreds of thousands of mortgages will reset across the state, creating a new wave of foreclosures."
In the third quarter of 2009, California accounted for more than 25 percent of the nation's foreclosure activity, with 250,000 homes receiving foreclosure filings statewide. This is an annual increase of almost 20 percent in foreclosure activity and more foreclosures loom.
California homeowners hold almost 60 percent of the nation's exotic pay option ARMs originated between 2004 and 2008. Approximately one million of these mortgages will reset nationwide in the next four years, resulting in higher payments and a dramatic increase in foreclosures.
Brown believes that the lending industry must be responsive to homeowners and loan modification programs must be expanded.
In October 2008, Brown announced an $8.68 billion settlement with Countrywide Home Loans, once the largest lender in the county, after the company deceived borrowers by misrepresenting loan terms, loan payment increases, and borrowers' ability to afford loans.
In total, Brown has sought court orders to shut down more than 30 fraudulent foreclosure assistance companies and has brought criminal charges and obtained lengthy prison sentences for dozens of deceptive loan modification consultants.
Homeowners who have been scammed can contact the Attorney General's office at 1-800-952-5225, or file a complaint online at: www.ag.ca.gov/consumers/general.php .
For more information on the Brown's action against loan modification fraud visit: http://ag.ca.gov/loanmod .
Brown's request was made in a letter sent to: Bank of America Home Loans & Insurance; Wells Fargo & Company; JP Morgan Chase & Co.; Litton Loan Servicing; ResCap, LLC; Ocwen Financial Corporation; OneWest Bank; American Home Mortgage Servicing; Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.; and Select Portfolio Servicing. Banks and loan servicers are asked to respond by Nov. 23.
The text of the letter follows.
October 29, 2009
The foreclosure crisis continues to plague California homeowners who are trapped in mortgages with exploding monthly payments. While the economy is beginning to improve, homeowners desperate to save their homes have seen little relief. And analysts predict that foreclosures will continue to worsen, particularly as Pay Option ARMs begin to recast.
Economists estimate that about one million Pay Option ARMs will reset in the next four years, resulting in massive payment shock and dramatically worsening the foreclosure crisis. California, with 58 per cent of all Pay Option ARMs originated between 2004 and 2008, will be the epicenter of this crisis. Systemic plans to modify these loans as they recast must be in place, in order to preserve home ownership and avoid a prolonged and painful recession.
Loan modifications can help many of these borrowers save their homes. To be successful, however, current loan modification programs must expand. The Administration's Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) has been slow to get off the ground and will not benefit thousands of Californians threatened by foreclosure, as it does not allow for principal reduction. Yet principal reduction is exactly what borrowers need. Borrowers living in areas with sharp depreciation in housing prices do not have enough equity in their homes to qualify for HAMP. This situation is even more dire for borrowers with Pay Option ARMs, who now owe more on their homes than when they first took out their mortgages.
Poor customer service often is a significant obstacle to effective loan modifications. Homeowners seeking loan modifications continually complain that their lenders and servicers fail to respond to their phone calls; that they are asked to resubmit the same paperwork over and over again; that they are told they will not be considered for a modification unless they are already in default; and that they receive no answer to their request for a loan modification and are left with no option but to short sell their home, go through foreclosure, or file for bankruptcy. Effective customer service systems must be in place to address the next wave of mortgage resets.
The foreclosure crisis and the expected deluge of Pay Option ARM recasts require advance planning on the part of the entire mortgage industry. Given the importance of this issue, we ask that you provide the following information by no later than November 23, 2009:
1. The number of Pay Option ARM loans secured by residential real property
located in California that you are servicing (regardless of whether you own the loans).
2. Of the number of Pay Option ARM loans identified above, the number that have negatively amortized, and the average dollar amount of that negative amortization.
3. A detailed explanation of all efforts you have taken to handle customer service concerns of borrowers with Pay Option ARM loans, including any increased staffing and a description of any notices you send or are planning to send to borrowers whose loans are about to reset. For advance notices sent to borrowers, please specify how far in advance of the reset date you send, or plan to send, those notices.
4. A detailed explanation of the loan modification plans you have developed for Pay Option ARM loans. Please state the circumstances under which your plans allow for the reduction of principal, and the possible amounts of principal reduction. If you are not willing to consider principal reduction as part of your plan, please explain why. Please also specify whether you have already implemented your modification plans for Pay Option ARMs or, if not, the time frame within which you expect to do so.
5. To the extent your approach for considering whether and how to modify Pay Option ARM loans has changed since the beginning of the foreclosure crisis, please explain the changes and the reasons for those changes.
We look forward to receiving the requested information and to productive discussions on how to minimize the impact of Pay Option ARM recasts on California's residents and economy.
Sincerely,
BENJAMIN DIEHL
Deputy Attorney General
For EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Attorney General
- Details
- Written by: California Attorney General's Office
How to resolve AdBlock issue?