A New Jersey couple sued the NCUA after the agency determined that $259,625 of their life savings was uninsured at the $49 million Unilever Federal Credit Union, which was involuntarily liquidated last year after employee fraud concealed multimillion-dollar losses.
In their 21-page federal complaint, Ellen and Alexander Plotkin of Wyckoff, N.J., alleged that the NCUA denied their appeal over the insurance dispute, relied on flawed and fraud-tainted records, and disregarded key evidence. The Plotkins are representing themselves.
The Plotkins joined the Englewood Cliffs, N.J.-based Unilever Federal Credit Union in December 2014. They held multiple share certificates representing their life savings and structured those accounts for full federal insurance, relying on an advisory relationship with two of the five Unilever staff, including former CEO and Board Treasurer Jim Kopfensteiner.
While reviewing their quarterly statements in December 2024, the Plotkins became concerned that their portfolio might not be fully insured because the statements and related account records contained missing or incorrect ownership classifications.
In January 2025, 90 days before the credit union's closure, the Plotkins said they provided Unilever with written instructions to rebalance their funds among the certificates to secure full federal insurance coverage, according to the lawsuit.
After submitting those instructions, the couple said Unilever told them its core processing system had recently changed and that account statements would be unavailable. The credit union instructed the Plotkins to rely on emailed screenshots to complete transfers, but those screenshots contained multiple errors, according to the lawsuit.
By July 2025, three months after Unilever was liquidated, the NCUA determined that the $259,625 of the Plotkins' savings was uninsured based on the credit union's account records and the agency's insurance rules.
Unilever's first-quarter 2025 Call Report showed uninsured shares and deposits totaled $5.4 million while $38.9 million in shares and deposits were insured.
The Plotkins claimed Unilever's records were inconsistent and unreliable and that the NCUA committed substantial procedural violations under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which governs how federal agencies must make decisions.
On Oct. 22, 2025, the NCUA Office of Inspector General issued its semi-annual report, which stated that two unnamed employees allegedly hid borrowings and used them to conceal their fraudulent activity and mask the credit union's true liquidity position. Because of that, the Plotkins also claimed the credit union's records became tainted by fraud.
By November, the Plotkins filed an appeal to the NCUA Board, which included the Board's sole decisionmaker, Kyle S. Hauptman. The lawsuit alleged Hauptmann had "actual knowledge that UFCU (Unilever) account records were unreliable and internally inconsistent, reflecting data and classification defects."
On Feb. 13, 2026, 93 days after the Plotkins filed their appeal, the NCUA board issued a one-sentence denial that stated, "We are administratively denying your appeal." By March, the NCUA confirmed that its February denial was final, stating that "failure by the board to issue a decision on an appeal within 90 days shall be deemed a denial of the appeal."
According to the lawsuit, the "deemed denial" allowed the NCUA to dispose of the appeal while relieving the agency of the requirement to explain a decision.
However, federal regulations also require a Special Counsel to conduct a review of an appeal's complete administrative record and submit a reasoned recommendation to the NCUA Board based on law and fact.
The Plotkins said they received no decision, no findings, no reasoning and no indication that any such review occurred.
"This is not an adverse decision – it is the absence of a decision," the Plotkins argued. "As confirmed by the Defendants' (the NCUA) own clarification, the agency relied exclusively on the lapse of time provision – i.e., a deemed denial – to dispose of the appeal."
The lawsuit alleged the NCUA and Hauptman provided no finding, no reasoning and no legal analysis. "In a single-member Board context, this reflects that the sole decisionmaker failed to perform the adjudicative functions required by regulation," the Plotkins wrote.
The NCUA has not yet answered the lawsuit and its standing policy prohibits officials from commenting on litigation.
The Plotkins asked U.S. District Court Judge Jamel K. Semper in Newark to declare the NCUA's final action unlawful under the APA, vacate the denial of the Plotkins' insured share claim, and award them costs and other relief the court deems just and proper.
READ MORE: Plotkin v. NCUA.
Peter Strozniak can be reached at peter.strozniak@arc-network.com.
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.