WYCKOFF, N.J. — A New Jersey couple has sued the National Credit Union Administration, alleging the agency improperly denied a claim for $259,625 following the collapse and liquidation of Unilever Federal Credit Union and failed to provide a legally sufficient explanation for its decision.
According to a complaint filed April 13 in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Ellen and Alexander Plotkin are seeking judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act of what they characterize as an unlawful denial of federal share insurance coverage tied to deposits they held at the credit union.
The lawsuit alleges the agency relied on inaccurate account records and did not follow required administrative review procedures.
‘Thought They Were Insured’
According to the complaint, the Plotkins became members of Unilever Federal Credit Union in 2014 and maintained multiple share certificates that they believed had been structured to remain fully insured under federal coverage limits. The plaintiffs allege they later discovered account statements and related records contained missing or incorrect ownership classifications that raised concerns over whether all deposits remained insured, court records show.
The complaint alleges that in January 2025, roughly 90 days before Unilever FCU was liquidated, the Plotkins submitted written instructions intended to rebalance funds among certificates to maintain full insurance coverage. The suit further alleges the credit union informed them its processing platform had recently changed and that statements were unavailable, directing them instead to rely on emailed account screenshots that the complaint alleges contained errors.
A Quarter-Million-Dollars Ruled Uninsured
According to the lawsuit, after Unilever FCU entered liquidation, the NCUA determined that $259,625 of the couple’s deposits was uninsured based on account records and application of federal insurance rules.
The complaint further alleges the records used by the agency were unreliable and internally inconsistent and that the NCUA had reason to know of those alleged deficiencies. The plaintiffs contend the agency committed procedural violations under the Administrative Procedure Act during its review process.
According to the filing, the Plotkins appealed the insurance determination to the NCUA Board in November 2025, at which time the board would have included only Chairman Kyle Hauptman. The complaint alleges that on Feb. 13, 2026, the board issued what the plaintiffs describe as a one-sentence denial stating only: “We are administratively denying your appeal.” The complaint further alleges the agency later advised that failure to issue a decision within 90 days constitutes a denial under agency procedures.
Additional Allegations
The lawsuit alleges the process deprived the couple of findings, reasoning or confirmation that a review of the administrative record had occurred as contemplated under agency procedures. The Plotkins are asking the court to overturn the denial and require further review of their insurance claim.
Court records show the case is docketed as Plotkin et al. v. National Credit Union Administration et al., No. 2:26-cv-03861, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
