Prudential Financial Inc.

September 25, 2014Dear *** ***:
This letter is in response to a recent complaint received by Prudential Retirement (“Prudential”)- regarding consumer complaint #***The complainant is a member in the *** National Annuity Trust (the “Plan"), for which
Prudential Retirement is the directed recordkeeperIn the correspondence the member expresses concerns regarding his account balance being rolled over to an Individual Retirement Account (“IRA”) with Prudential on August 29, 2014.The International Brotherhood of *** ("***") outlines in the Plan’s document the rules for participation in and disbursements from the PlanPrudential has been retained by the *** as the directed Plan recordkeeperIn this role Prudential helps facilitate disbursements from the Plan in accordance with the rules the *** has outlined in the Plan’s documents and administrative procedures.In response to the concerns that were expressed regarding the rollover to a Prudential IRA, a full review of the member’s account was completed including the telephone conversation with the Prudential Participant Service Center.In accordance with the Plan's provisions, a member that has an account balance of less than $5,and has not contributed to the account in the past months will have the balance of their account distributed, if the account balance is less than $1,000,00, the account will be paid out to the member as a single lump sum disbursementIf the account balance is between $1,and $5,000,00, the account will be rolled over to an IRA with Prudential.Prudential mailed a letter to the member on June 30, explaining the Plan's disbursement provisions referenced above and included an August 29, processing dateThe member had an option of processing a single lump sum disbursement or a rollover to an IRA prior to August 22, This request could have been processed over the telephone by speaking with a Prudential customer service advocate, on the Prudential Online Retirement Center, or by completing a disbursement election formThe member contacted Prudential via telephone on July 10, and inquired about the Plan's disbursement provisionsDuring the conversation, the Prudential customer service advocate explained the member’s options and the disbursement processThe member indicated that his intent was to rollover the account to an IRA with another provider; however, he did not have the necessary information for the other financial institution at that time., The member indicated that he would call back at a later date to process the rollover requestPrudential does not have a record of receiving a second telephone call or a disbursement request from the memberTherefore, the member's account balance was rolled over to an IRA with Prudential on August 29, as I indicated in the June 30,letter. Prudential has attempted to contact the member to obtain additional information regarding the telephone conversation referenced in his correspondence; however, we have been unsuccessful The existing funds in the Prudential IRA are available to be rolled over to a new account at anytimeThis request can be completed via telephone by contacting a Prudential customer service advocate at *** Monday through Friday, 8:am to 9;pm Eastern TimeOn behalf of Prudential, I hope the information provided helps resolve this matterIf you have any additional questions, please fee! free to contact me directly at ###-###-####.Sincerely,
Kimberly P
Director, Participant Service Center

Dear *** ***,This letter is in response to a recent complaint received by Prudential Retirement (Prudential) regarding consumer complaint #***. The complainant is a participant in the *** *** 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan (the Plan), for which Prudential is the directed
record keeper. In his complaint, the complainant expresses concerns regarding an August 1, investment exchange and his direct rollover request that was processed on March 20, 2017.The *** *** (***) outlines in the Plan's documents the exchange and disbursement (including direct rollovers) provisions for the Plan. Prudential has been retained by the Plan as their directed record keeper. In his role Prudential helps facilitate both exchanges between investments and disbursements from the Plan in accordance with the rules the *** has outlined in the Plan's documents and administrative procedures.In response to the concerns that were expressed by the complainant, a full review of the account was completed. our records indicate the following:The complainant initially contacted Prudential on August 1, and requested an exchange of 100% of the current investments within his account to the *** *** ***. At the time of this request, the complainant was enrolled in ***, which is an optional asset allocation program available to Plan participants which selects a specific asset allocation based on the participant's risk tolerance and time horizon to retirement. *(*** also has a rebalance feature that will reallocate a participant's investments to the original *** also has a rebalance feature that will reallocate a participant's investments to the original *** allocations on either a quarter, semi-annual, or annual basis. The rebalance frequency is elected by the Plan.On August 1, 2016, our customer service representative processed the complainant's exchange into the *** *** ***: however, the representative did not de-enroll the complainant from ***. This caused the complainant's funds in the *** *** *** to transfer back into the *** asset allocations on September 16, 2016. The complainant contacted our Participant Service Center on November 1, and the customer service representative submitted a request to have the August 1, exchange reviewed. Prudential confirmed that the complainant should have been de-enrolled from *** at the time of the August 1, call. On November 7, 2016, Prudential completed a correction on the complainant's account and placed his funds back into the *** *** *** using September 26, Net Asset Values, the date the rebalance occurred. The complainant did request a letter once the correction was complete. Our customer service representative explained that the correction would be available to view on the Transaction History page on the Prudential Online Retirement Center and referred him to the website.On March 16, 2016, the complainant contacted our Participant Service Center via telephone with his financial advisor to request a total direct rollover to another financial institution. The complainant gave permission to discuss the account and process the direct rollover with his financial advisor. The complainant gave permission to discuss the account and process the direct rollover with his financial advisorThe complainant's financial advisor confirmed the funds were being rolled over to a Traditional Individual Retirement Account and provided the customer service representative with the direct rollover check instructions for the new financial institution. Currently, Prudential does not have the option to electronically sent funds for a direct rollover; however, we do provide two mailing options for the direct rollover check. The complainant had the option to have the check sent regular mail through the United States Postal Service or express mail which is one to two business day delivery through the United Parcel Service (UPS) for a $fee. The complainant's financial advisor elected to have the check sent regular mail. After the telephone call ended, our customer service representative discovered that the Plan's $35.pp disbursement fee was not disclosed and made an outbound telephone call to the complainant to disclose the fee.According to the Plan's disbursement provisions, the Plan requires married participant's and their spouse to complete a Spousal Waiver form prior to a disbursement being processed. Once Prudential receives the completed Spousal Waiver form, the disbursement automatically processes within one to two business days. The funds within a participant's account stay invested until the disbursement is processed. Prudential received the complainant's completed Spousal Waiver form on Saturday, March 18, 2017. The direct rollover processed on the next business day, Monday, March 20, in the amount of $162, 495.57, and a direct rollover check was mailed to his new financial institution on March 21, 2017. These requirements and processing time were disclosed on the March 16, telephone call.I appreciate the opportunity to review the complaint's concerns. On behalf of Prudential, I hope the information provided helps resolve this matter. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me directly a *** ***.Sincerely,Kimberly P***Director Participant Service Center

March 17, 2017Dear [redacted]:This letter is in response to the March 8, 2017 follow-up correspondence regarding consumer complaint #[redacted]. Prudential Retirement's ("Prudential') original response was issued to your office on March 6, 2017.Prudential receives a Death Master File(s) ("DMF) from the Social Security Administration for reported deaths each month in addition to an annual file. The DMF is compared to Prudential's administrative systems to identify possible matches. There is also an annual process in which the names of all participants and alternate payees at Prudential are compared to the DMF. If a match is found, Prudential follows standard practices to confirm whether an individual is deceased and attempts to locate beneficiary(s) to the account. The procedures Prudential followed regarding this matter was outlined in our March 6, 2017 response. Both the DMF from the Social Security Administration and the transition records from the Plan's prior record keeper contain personal information for multiple participants at Prudential. In accordance with security and privacy requirements, Prudential is unable to release the records.Prudential was able to obtain the quarterly account statements from the time the member's account transitioned to Prudential until the fourth quarter of 2016. The quarterly account statements will be enclosed with a copy of this letter that we are sending to the complainant. In addition, the Plan made changes to their administrative fees effective July 1, 2015. Prudential will also be including a copy of the correspondence that was sent to participating members which explains the Plan's fee structure both before and after the change.On behalf of Prudential, I hope the information provided helps resolve this matter. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me directly at [redacted].Sincerely,Kimberly P Director, Participant Service Center

December 30, 2015Dear [redacted]:This letter is in response to your correspondence of December 18, 2015, regarding [redacted]'s annuity contract. Thank you for bringing this inquiry to our attention.We are continuing the process of researching the inquiry, regarding [redacted]'s...

annuity contract and will respond directly to her once we have completed our review.If you have any questions, please contact me at ([redacted], ext, [redacted]. I can be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time.We appreciate your patience throughout the process, and hope that your client will give Prudential an opportunity to serve your client in the future.Sincerely,Angelia A.Senior Analyst

Complaint: [redacted]
Subject:  Response from Prudential official - Mary [redacted] C[redacted], dated July 29, 2014
I am rejecting this response because:
In essence, the subject
response is no response!  The subject recounts several acknowledged
mistakes, errors, late payments, last processing, and misinformation
over the last five (5) years.  The subject even notes an apology plus
the subject acknowledges information was sent to me incorrectly.  If
Prudential had been doing its job correctly, would the above have been
necessary to write?  I think not.
I believe a better review of most of the relevant facts about our
efforts with Prudential and its named officials are summarized in the
attached letter to Travis S[redacted] of October 30, 2013 with IX (9)
Exhibits, attached to this Revdex.com Reject Business Response web submission. 
Moreover, a separate letter from the State Treasurer [NC] to us dates
July 16, 2012 about our accounts states that she is "...working to
resolve [our] outstanding issues in a timely manner."  If she had
resolved our issues (in concert with Prudential), we might have received
our 1099R for 2013, from Prudential, in a timely manner.  Instead, a
letter to and a call to Prudential was necessary to get our 1099Rs.  The
one missing finally arrived in March, 2014. 
This is the type
of management/service/other issues that we have had each and every year
since 2009.  [We can recall only 1 year where all 1099s arrived before
the IRS regulated dates of January 31st; notwithstanding, even then, the
1099s did not have property identification for use in our tax
preparation.  Another example of poor records is in the letter from
Prudential to me ([redacted]) dated October 8, 2010.  This document
has me being hired on 1-1-1900...clearly an impossibility.  Incorrect
records, indeed, with me -- again -- having to call to correct.  My
wife, [redacted], has a similar letter.
All of this makes one
wonder about putting the client first.  [In fact, the NC Office of
Attorney General has pondered a related question about the 401K/457
System (NC) giving tax advise.  That office suggests in the enclosed
letter of July 27, 2012 that the Department of State Treasurer,
Retirement System Division, that it may have been operating contrary to
tax law for years.]
These are several reasons why the subject
response is no response!  As to the fact of a charge to Prudential for
all of our work to straighten out the Prudential (in their role in
concert with the 401K/457 System [NC]) over a 5 year period, please note
on my attached resume that I did have the necessary licenses in NC to
conduct such business(es), and I do.
Based on the above, the
request for payment is made again...a request bolstered by Prudential,
et al., agreeing to consider said payment once documentation was
presented--and it has been.  This is only fair because, insofar as we
are aware, all of the problems recounted (and others) have been caused
by Prudential and their officials/employees.
Thank you.
Regards,
[redacted]

This letter is in response to a recent complaint received by Prudential Retirement ("Prudential") Regarding consumer complaint #114221.50. The complainant is a participant in the Covenant House Savings and Retirement Plan (the "Plan"), for which Prudential is the directed record keeper. In his...

complaint, the complainant expresses concerns regarding his employment status in Prudential's records and the processing of his disbursement request.Covenant House outlines in the Plan's documents the disbursement provisions for the Plan, Prudential has been retained by the Plan as their directed record keeper. In this role Prudential helps facilitate disbursements from the Plan in accordance with the rules Covenant House has outlined in the Plan's documents and administrative procedures.In response to the concerns that were expressed by the complainant, a full review of the account was completed. Our records indicate the following:In accordance with the Plan's administrative procedures, Prudential is required to have the participant's last day of employment with Covenant House on file prior to processing a disbursement from the Plan. The last day of employment is normally received from the Plan after the participant's last payroll information is submitted by Covenant House. The payroll information may include contributions and/or loan repayments that would need to be applied to the participant's account prior to a disbursement being requested.The complainant initially contacted Prudential via telephone on March 11, 2016 regarding his disbursement options and indicated that he had separated service with Covenant House on March 5, 2016. The Prudential customer service representative explained that our records reflected the complainant as an active employee. The representative also informed the complainant that the employment status change is normally submitted within one to two payroll cycles after he separated service; however, it may take up to six weeks depending on the Plan.The complainant contacted Prudential via telephone March 30, 2016, April 6, 2016, and April 12, 2016 to confirm his employment status and on each occasion, the complainant was reflected as an active employee in Prudential's records. During the April 12, 2016 telephone conversation, the Prudential representative submitted a request to have the complainant's employment status confirmed with the Plan since we were now beyond the normal one to two payroll cycle timing for the employment status update. Prudential contacted the Plan via email on April 13, 2016. The same day Prudential received notification that the complainant bad separated service with Covenant House; however, the Plan did not provide the complainant's date of separation. A second email was sent to the Plan on April 15, 2016. The Plan responded later that day indicating the complainant separated service on March 5, 2016 and Prudential updated the complainant's employment status on April 18, 2016.On April 19, 2016, the complainant requested a lump sum disbursement of his entire account balance via the Prudential Online Retirement Center. The disbursement processed on April 19, 2016 in the amount of $1,363.03. Prudential withheld the required federal income taxes and a check made payable to the complainant was mailed on April 20, 2016 for $1,090,42.The complainant contacted Prudential via telephone a total of five times between April 25, 2016 and April 29, 2016 indicating that he had not received the April 20, 2016 check. The Prudential representatives offered to place a stop payment on the check and have a new check reissued express mail at our expense. The complainant declined the offer on these telephone calls. On May 2, 2016, the complainant elected to have the April 20, 2016 check stopped and reissued. A new check was sent via overnight delivery on May 4, 2016, at Prudential's expense, and Prudential received confirmation that the check was delivered to the complainant on May 5. 2016.I appreciate the opportunity to review the participant's concerns. On behalf of Prudential, I hope the information provided helps resolve this matter. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact mc directly at ###-###-####.Sincerely,Kimberly P[redacted] Director, Participant Service Center

This letter is in response to a recent complaint received by Prudential Retirement ("Prudential") regarding consumer complaint [redacted]. The complainant is a participant in the New Jersey State Employees Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Plan"), for which Prudential is the directed record keeper. In...

her complaint, the complainant expresses concerns regarding the Plan's unforeseen emergency withdrawal process.The State of New Jersey outlines in the Plan's documents the disbursement provisions (including disbursements for financial hardship) for the Plan. Prudential has been retained by the Plan as their directed recordkeeper. In this role, Prudential helps facilitate disbursements from the Plan in accordance with the rules the State of New Jersey has outlined in the Plan's documents and administrative procedures.In response to the concerns that were expressed by the complainant, a full review of the account was completed. Our records indicate the following:The Plan provides unforeseen emergency withdrawals for the loss of income for either the complainant or the complainant's spouse. Supporting documentation is required by the Plan to allow Prudential to process an unforeseen emergency withdrawal. Prudential sends the "Unforeseeable Emergency Withdrawal Request' form to the complainant which provides examples of the required supporting documentation. The completed form and supporting documentation are returned to Prudential; however, the review and approval of the unforeseen emergency withdrawal is completed by the Plan.Prudential received the complainant's "Unforeseeable Emergency Withdrawal Request form and supporting documentation regarding the loss of income for her spouse on August 1, 2017, and the request was submitted via email to the Plan later that afternoon for review. On August 2, 2017, Prudential received a response from the Plan requesting the complainant to submit a letter from her spouse's place of employment indicating the number of his working hours that were reduced and the reason why there was a reduction in hours. The letter also had to indicate when the reduction of hours began and if it was a permanent reduction. Prudential sent a letter via email to the complainant on August 2, 2017 requesting the additional information.After the Plan's processing cutoff on August 7, 2017, Prudential received the requested letter from the complainant, and the documentation was submitted via email to the Plan for review on August 9, 2017. Prudential received a response from the Plan on August 11, 2017 requesting the complainant to submit a copy of her spouse's paystubs from prior to the reduction in hours. Prudential sent an email to the complainant on August 11, 2017 requesting a copy of the paystubs. Per the complainant's request, a second email was submitted on August 15, 2017.On August 16, 2017, Prudential received a copy of the requested paystubs, and they were submitted to the Plan that day. We received approval from the Plan on August 18, 2017 to process the complainant's unforeseen emergency withdrawal for $3,500.00. The unforeseen emergency withdrawal was processed on August 18, 2017. The complainant elected out of federal and state income taxes and $3,500.00 was sent via direct deposit to the complainant's back account on August 21, 2017.I appreciate the opportunity to review the complainant's concerns. On behalf of Prudential, I hope the information provided helps resolve this matter. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me directly at ###-###-####.Sincerely,Jeffrey W[redacted] Manager, Participant Service Center

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.  I am moving on to investigate [redacted].  Many thanks to Prudential for sending all the requested information.
Regards,
[redacted]

July 29, 2014Dear [redacted]:This letter is in response to the above complaint filed with your office by a member in the North Carolina 401(k) Plan and the North Carolina 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan (“Plans”). Prudential Retirement (“Prudential”) has been retained by the state...

of North Carolina as the non- discretionary service provider for both Plans.The issues raised to the Revdex.com by this member have been previously addressed in written responses and the issues resolved. Please allow me to provide further details regarding this matter.
In response to the member’s claim regarding incorrect 1099R Forms, Prudential provided a corrected NC 401(k) 2011 1099R tax form to his spouse in February 2012 because it had erroneously included an amount subject to State income taxes. Additionally, these forms include text stating that payments from the member’s Plans and North Carolina annuities are exempt from North Carolina state taxes. Additionally, Prudential provided a response letter dated September 27, 2012, explaining that we were able to accommodate his request to provide two separate 1099R tax forms for the annuitized amounts from the Plans. In a letter dated March 11, 2014, we advised that the 1099R forms previously had only the plan number listed and the not plan name, but as of the date of the letter, the 1099R would now include the plan name.The member further claims there was no resolution after Prudential acknowledged in writing the issues he has brought forth. Based on prior complaints received from the member, we believe he is referencing the numerous invoices he submitted for reimbursement in excess of $52,000.00 for time and effort that he spent drafting communications and making phone calls about his retirement benefits. We believe that we have taken all appropriate measures to address his concerns. We do not believe it is appropriate for us to pay in excess of $52,000 to his financial consulting firm, in which he is a principal.The member requested to annuitize his State of North Carolina 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan benefit. Annuitization of his plan account benefit was and c[redacted]nues to be an available option under the terms of this plan. Unfortunately, the member was misinformed by Prudential about the availability of this option under this plan. This matter was clarified, and an apology was provided to the member. As requested, the member was able to partially annuitize his North Carolina 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan benefit.
In regards to the member’s references to issues with subsequent transactions, we believe he is referencing an issue with his spouse’s account. His spouse, also a member in the North Carolina 401(k) Plan, received from Prudential in December 2012 the amount of $296.60 in missed earnings for a late transfer benefit payment. This information was confirmed by Prudential in a letter to him dated December 21, 2012.
The member also states he did not receive timely required minimum distribution (RMD) payments from the Plans. Our records indicate that Prudential acknowledged that the member’s 2011 RMD payment from his State of North Carolina 401(k) was sent by check instead of by the requested electronic deposit. His bank account was credited by Prudential on December 21, 2012, in the amount of $.46 due to this error. This payment was considered “Other Income” and did not generate a 1099-MISC form. Additionally, our August 29, 2012, letter further acknowledged that the member’s North Carolina 457(b) RMD was processed on July 5, 2012, and included $1.01 of interest due to the payment not processing as scheduled on June 20, 2012.Below is an additional summary of the member’s RMD history which was provided to him in a letter dated October 22, 2013:
• The 2011 401k RMD amount was $2,028.60 and was paid on December 21, 2011.• The 2012 401k RMD amount was $2,038.53 and was paid on December 19, 2012.• The 2013 North Carolina 457(b) Deferred Compensation RMD amount was $406.14 and was paid on June 20, 2013, and sent to him electronically on June 21, 2013.
The member references “correspondence from Prudential that is contrary to the NC Supreme Court Decision”. We believe that the member is referencing the letter sent to him from Prudential on February 14, 2014, which advised him that in response to a change in state law, the North Carolina Department of Revenue informed Prudential that retirees and benefit recipients must complete and submit a new tax form or update their tax withholding. Due to this change to the North Carolina tax regulations (Session Law 2013-316, House Bill 998), Prudential was directed by the State of North Carolina to solicit individuals whose benefit would be affected by the change. The intended population for this communication were members who received a systematic payment and are subject to NC State Income Tax, and did not include this member. This information was sent to him inadvertently. Prudential sent him a letter on March 11, 2014, apologizing for this issue and confirmed his benefit was not affected by this change. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to address this matter. Prudential believes that we have taken appropriate measures to address this member’s concerns. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me directly at ###-###-####.
Sincerely,Mary [redacted] Client Service Manager Total Retirement Solutions

March 31, 2017Dear [redacted]:This letter is in response to a recent complaint received by Prudential Retirement ("Prudential") regarding consumer complaint #[redacted]. The complainant is a participant in the HonorHealth 403(b) Retirement Plan (the "Plan"), for which Prudential is the directed...

record keeper. In his complaint, the complainant expresses concerns regarding the Plan's disbursement provisions and his overall customer service experience with Prudential.HonorHealth outlines in the Plan's documents the disbursement provisions for the Plan. Prudential has been retained by the Plan as their directed record keeper. In this role Prudential helps facilitate disbursements from the Plan in accordance with the rules Honorhealth has outlined in the Plan's documents and administrative procedures.In response to the concerns expressed by the complainant, a full review of the account was completed. Our records indicate the following:According to the Plan's disbursement provisions, once a Plan participant separates service from Honorhealth all funds within the account become available for disbursement. The Plan provides that the mandatory form of benefit under the Plan is a qualified annuity. If a Plan participant is married on the date the benefits are to begin, the participant automatically will receive a Joint and Survivor annuity ("QJSA"), unless the participant and his or her spouse waive the annuity and elect an alternative form of disbursement. The spouse must consent in writing to the waiver in the presence of a notary or a Plan representative. The Plan's QJSA provision requires a full seven calendar day waiting period with the transaction processing on the eighth calendar day. The disbursement amount and processing date on the "QJSA Notice and Waiver' form must match the disbursement amount and processing date in our systems.On August 18, 2016, Prudential received a "Request for Transfer of Assets or Direct Rollover' form from American Funds on behalf of the complainant. Due to the Plan's QJSA provisions, the complainant and his spouse are required to complete a "QJSA Notice and Waiver' prior to processing a disbursement including a direct rollover from the account. There were no telephone calls from the complainant to our Participant Service Center regarding the direct rollover request. Prudential mailed the complainant a letter on August 19, 2016 requesting he contact Prudential via telephone to process his direct rollover and to have a "QJSA Notice and Waiver form sent to him. Prudential did not receive any additional communications or telephone calls until February 22, 2017.The complainant contacted our Participant Service Center via telephone on February 22, 2017 with his financial advisor to request a total direct rollover. At the beginning of the telephone conversation, our customer service representative discussed the Plan's QJSA provisions and emailed the complainant a "QJSA Notice and Waiver' form. However, while the customer service representative was collecting the direct rollover instructions from the complainant's financial advisor, the telephone call disconnected. The customer service representative was unable to complete the direct rollover request, and the complainant did not contact Prudential again until March 21, 2017 to provide the remaining direct rollover instructions. Prudential received the complainant's original completed "QJSA Notice and Waiver' on February 25, 2017. Since our customer service representative was unable to submit the direct rollover request, an additional letter was mailed to the complainant on February 27, 2017 requesting him to contact our Participant Service Center.On March 21, 2017, the complainant contacted Prudential twice regarding his direct rollover request. During the first telephone conversation, it was explained to the complainant that we were unable to complete his previous direct rollover due to the telephone call disconnecting and informed him of the direct rollover instructions that were needed to re-submit the direct rollover. The customer service representative also indicated that a new "QJSA Notice and Waiver' form would be needed as the processing amount and date on the forms has to match the direct rollover information that was submitted. On this telephone call, the customer service representative placed the participant on hold twice to review the account. The first hold time was 3 minutes and 16 seconds with the second hold being 1 minute and 34 seconds.During the second telephone call on March 21, 2017, the complainant was able to provide our customer service representative with the full direct rollover instructions. Our customer service representative disclosed the QJSA seven calendar day waiting period and emailed the complainant a new "QJSA Notice and Waiver' form. Prudential received the complainant's completed form on March 23, 2017. The direct rollover processed on March 29, 2017 in the amount of $1,801.67, and the direct rollover check made payable to [redacted] was mailed on March 30, 2017.I appreciate the opportunity to review the complainant's concerns. On behalf of Prudential, I hope the information provided helps resolve this matter. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me directly at ###-###-####.Sincerely,Kimberly P[redacted]Director, Participant Service Center

August 20, 2014Dear [redacted]:This letter is in response to the consumer’s rejection of Prudential’s previous response on July 29, 2014, regarding the above referenced complaint.The additional issues raised to the Revdex.com by this member have been previously addressed in written responses provided by Prudential. Please allow me to provide further details regarding this matter.In response to the member’s claim for not receiving a 2013 1099-R tax form, Prudential, as payor, can confirm that all 2013 1099-R forms for this member were mailed in a timely manner during the week of January 13, 2014.The member references that his date of hire on file was incorrect. Upon hire, all members are immediately 100% vested in the NC 401(k) Plan, therefore the State of North Carolina does not utilize this date for vesting purposes. However, when Prudential was made aware of the incorrect date it was corrected on our recordkeeping system. Also note that there was no negative impact to member due to this incorrect date.Additionally, the member continues to request reimbursement in excess of $52,000.00 for time and effort that he spent drafting communications and placing telephone calls regarding his retirement benefits. As stated in our letter dated November 25, 2013, the member bases his claim on language in a letter written by Prudential dated August 6, 2012. The August 6, 2012 letter does not state unequivocally that Prudential will reimburse him. Instead, the letter referred to Prudential reviewing the invoices he submitted and making a determination on whether to reimburse him. The details of this matter and the member’s invoices were reviewed within Prudential, and we believe that Prudential has taken all appropriate measures to address the member’s concerns, and we do not believe it is appropriate for Prudential to pay in excess of $52,000 to his financial consulting firm in which he is the principal.With regard to the statement in the member’s statement regarding the letter dated July 27, 2012 from Robert C[redacted] to [redacted], Director of the North Carolina Department of State Treasurer Retirement Systems Division, I have confirmed with the Retirement Systems Division that they have not been acting contrary to tax law for years.Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to address this matter. Prudential believes that we have taken appropriate measures to address this member’s concerns. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me directly at ###-###-####.Sincerely,Mary [redacted] Client Service Manager Total Retirement Solutions

Complaint: #[redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: No, all fees were not explained with my advisor. It was not till later that day that a message was left on my phone that there would be a 35.00 fee taken off my funds. So as many misstates that  Prudential has made on my account, and these are only the ones I know of without getting some kind of audit done.As far as the "Prudential general account" goes, I was not asked to put that money there at any time. I will ask again, who is making income when my money and many others are having MY money and THEIR money put in a account that I-we never told you to.
Regards,
[redacted]

Dear [redacted],This letter is in response to the June 12, 2017 follow-up correspondence regarding consumer complaint #[redacted].  Please allow me to provide a final response addressing this matter.[redacted] ([redacted]) outlines in the [redacted] 401 (k) Retirement Savings Plan"s (the Plan) documents the disbursement (including direct rollovers) provisions for the Plan.  Prudential Retirement (Prudential) has been retained by the Plan as their directed record keeper.  In this role Prudential helps facilitate disbursements from the Plan in accordance with the rules [redacted] has outlined int he Plan's documents and administrative procedures.Prudential has completed a further review of this matter and confirmed the complainant's direct rollover processed according to the Plan's service agreement. with Prudential.  Prudential forwarded the complaint to the Plan, and [redacted] agreed that Prudential followed both the Plan's and Prudential's administrative procedures.  As indicated in previous responses, Prudential's decision is that Prudential will not reimburse the complainant additional interest for the mailing time of the direct rollover check.Any future questions regarding this matter must be submitted directly to the Plan administrator:[redacted], Attn: [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted].The Plan will only respond to the complainant's future requests or inquiries for new or additional information beyond the information previously provided, except as required by law.  Requests for specific information must be submitted to the Plan in writing.On behalf of Prudential, I hope the information provided helps resolve this matter.  If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me directly at ([redacted]) [redacted].Sincerely,Jeffrey W[redacted]Manager, Participant Service Center

March 6, 2017Dear [redacted]:This letter is in response to a recent complaint received by Prudential Retirement ("Prudential") regarding consumer complaint #[redacted]. The complainant is a beneficiary to a member in the [redacted] National 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan'), for which Prudential is...

the directed record keeper. In her complaint, the complainant expresses concerns regarding the death claim processing on the deceased member's account.The [redacted] ("[redacted]') outlines in the Plan’s documents the death claim provisions for the Plan. Prudential has been retained by the Plan as their directed record keeper. In this role Prudential helps facilitate death claim payments from the Plan in accordance with the rules the [redacted] has outlined in the Plan's documents and administrative procedures.In response to the concerns that were expressed by the complainant, a full review of the account was completed. Our records indicate the following:Prudential became the record keeper for the Plan on October 1, 2009. According to the transition records submitted to Prudential from the Plan's prior record keeper, [redacted], the member had separated service from the [redacted]; however, the records did not include information that the member was deceased. On November 9, 2016, Prudential received notification of the member's passing on April 23, 2005 from the Social Security Administration. Prudential had not received any communication of his passing prior to the notification from the Social Security Administration.Prudential completed a review of the member's account on November 9, 2016 and determined that we did not have a valid beneficiary designation on file. According to the Plan's death claim hierarchy, if a beneficiary is not designated at the time of death, the death benefit will be paid in the following order of priority:(a) surviving spouse, (b) surviving children in equal shares, (c) estate A search of last known relatives was completed and identified an address for the complainant. Prudential mailed a "Beneficiary Verification Certification' form to the complainant on November 9, 2016. The Beneficiary Verification Certification' form requested that the complainant confirm the above referenced death claim hierarchy information.On November 28, 2016, Prudential received the completed Beneficiary Verification Certification form and a copy of the form was submitted to the Plan on December 1, 2016 for review. Prudential received approval from the Plan on December 16, 2016 to name the complainant as sole beneficiary to the member's account, and a "Beneficiary Claim Form' was mailed to the complainant on December 16, 2016. To date, Prudential has not received the completedBeneficiary Claim Form' that is needed in order for us to process the death claim.Prudential received a letter from the complainant on January 13, 2017 requesting the date of death value, any related documentation from the member's enrollment to the date of death, and any information regarding withdrawals from the account since the member's passing. Due to an administrative oversight, there was a delay with completion of the complainant's request. Please accept my apology for the length of time this matter has taken. Prudential has completed a review of the account since the Plan transitioned to us on October 1, 2009. We have confirmed that there have not been any withdrawals processed since Prudential became the record keeper. The only deductions from the member's account has been the Plan's annual account fee; however, we are unable to obtain the records prior to October 1, 2009. The complainant will need to contact the Plan's prior record keeper, [redacted], for the value on the date of the member's passing and any documentation from the member's enrollment date to his date of passing.I appreciate the opportunity to review the complainant's concerns. On behalf of Prudential, I hope the information provided helps resolve this matter. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (570) 340-4063.Sincerely,Kimberly P.Director, Participant Service Center

December 30, 2015
Dear [redacted]:
This letter is in response to your correspondence of December 18, 2015, regarding [redacted]'s annuity contract. Thank you for bringing this inquiry to our attention.
We are continuing the process of researching the inquiry,...

regarding [redacted]'s annuity contract and will respond directly to her once we have completed our review.If you have any questions, please contact me at ([redacted], ext, [redacted]. I can be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
We appreciate your patience throughout the process, and hope that your client will give Prudential an opportunity to serve your client in the future.
Sincerely,
Angelia A.
Senior Analyst

This letter is in response to a recent complaint received by Prudential Retirement ("Prudential") Regarding consumer complaint #114221.50. The complainant is a participant in the Covenant House Savings and Retirement Plan (the "Plan"), for which Prudential is the directed...

record keeper. In his complaint, the complainant expresses concerns regarding his employment status in Prudential's records and the processing of his disbursement request.Covenant House outlines in the Plan's documents the disbursement provisions for the Plan, Prudential has been retained by the Plan as their directed record keeper. In this role Prudential helps facilitate disbursements from the Plan in accordance with the rules Covenant House has outlined in the Plan's documents and administrative procedures.
In response to the concerns that were expressed by the complainant, a full review of the account was completed. Our records indicate the following:In accordance with the Plan's administrative procedures, Prudential is required to have the participant's last day of employment with Covenant House on file prior to processing a disbursement from the Plan. The last day of employment is normally received from the Plan after the participant's last payroll information is submitted by Covenant House. The payroll information may include contributions and/or loan repayments that would need to be applied to the participant's account prior to a disbursement being requested.The complainant initially contacted Prudential via telephone on March 11, 2016 regarding his disbursement options and indicated that he had separated service with Covenant House on March 5, 2016. The Prudential customer service representative explained that our records reflected the complainant as an active employee. The representative also informed the complainant that the employment status change is normally submitted within one to two payroll cycles after he separated service; however, it may take up to six weeks depending on the Plan.The complainant contacted Prudential via telephone March 30, 2016, April 6, 2016, and April 12, 2016 to confirm his employment status and on each occasion, the complainant was reflected as an active employee in Prudential's records. During the April 12, 2016 telephone conversation, the Prudential representative submitted a request to have the complainant's employment status confirmed with the Plan since we were now beyond the normal one to two payroll cycle timing for the employment status update. Prudential contacted the Plan via email on April 13, 2016. The same day Prudential received notification that the complainant bad separated service with Covenant House; however, the Plan did not provide the complainant's date of separation. A second email was sent to the Plan on April 15, 2016. The Plan responded later that day indicating the complainant separated service on March 5, 2016 and Prudential updated the complainant's employment status on April 18, 2016.On April 19, 2016, the complainant requested a lump sum disbursement of his entire account balance via the Prudential Online Retirement Center. The disbursement processed on April 19, 2016 in the amount of $1,363.03. Prudential withheld the required federal income taxes and a check made payable to the complainant was mailed on April 20, 2016 for $1,090,42.The complainant contacted Prudential via telephone a total of five times between April 25, 2016 and April 29, 2016 indicating that he had not received the April 20, 2016 check. The Prudential representatives offered to place a stop payment on the check and have a new check reissued express mail at our expense. The complainant declined the offer on these telephone calls. On May 2, 2016, the complainant elected to have the April 20, 2016 check stopped and reissued. A new check was sent via overnight delivery on May 4, 2016, at Prudential's expense, and Prudential received confirmation that the check was delivered to the complainant on May 5. 2016.I appreciate the opportunity to review the participant's concerns. On behalf of Prudential, I hope the information provided helps resolve this matter. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact mc directly at ###-###-####.Sincerely,Kimberly P[redacted] Director, Participant Service Center

Review: In July of 2014 I was contacted by Prudential retirement services about some funds for my [redacted] trust retirement fund it would be coming available on July 29 for payout they described that the funds will be transferred into prudential IRA account if no action was taken. I called an account specialist in the beginning of August 2014 and instructed that I wanted my funds transferred into it account I already had set up with [redacted] gave him the information number and everything they need it to transfer the funds the representative on the phone told me there would be no problem with the transfer the beginning of September my funds will be available in my [redacted] account on or around September 2014 I received emailing stating that the funds have been transferred into a Prudential IRA not into by [redacted] account as described by me on the phone. I simply want the funds transferred into my [redacted] account thank you in advance.Desired Settlement: Placement of the funds into the [redacted] account as described in my interaction with customer service.

Business

Response:

September 25, 2014Dear [redacted]:This letter is in response to a recent complaint received by Prudential Retirement (“Prudential”). - regarding consumer complaint #[redacted]. The complainant is a member in the [redacted] National Annuity Trust (the “Plan"), for which Prudential Retirement is the directed recordkeeper. In the correspondence the member expresses concerns regarding his account balance being rolled over to an Individual Retirement Account (“IRA”) with Prudential on August 29, 2014.The International Brotherhood of [redacted] ("[redacted]") outlines in the Plan’s document the rules for participation in and disbursements from the Plan. Prudential has been retained by the [redacted] as the directed Plan recordkeeper. In this role Prudential helps facilitate disbursements from the Plan in accordance with the rules the [redacted] has outlined in the Plan’s documents and administrative procedures.In response to the concerns that were expressed regarding the rollover to a Prudential IRA, a full review of the member’s account was completed including the telephone conversation with the Prudential Participant Service Center.In accordance with the Plan's provisions, a member that has an account balance of less than $5,000.00 and has not contributed to the account in the past 12 months will have the balance of their account distributed, if the account balance is less than $1,000,00, the account will be paid out to the member as a single lump sum disbursement. If the account balance is between $1,000.00 and $5,000,00, the account will be rolled over to an IRA with Prudential.Prudential mailed a letter to the member on June 30, 2014 explaining the Plan's disbursement provisions referenced above and included an August 29, 2014 processing date. The member had an option of processing a single lump sum disbursement or a rollover to an IRA prior to August 22, 2014. This request could have been processed over the telephone by speaking with a Prudential customer service advocate, on the Prudential Online Retirement Center, or by completing a disbursement election form.The member contacted Prudential via telephone on July 10, 2014 and inquired about the Plan's disbursement provisions. During the conversation, the Prudential customer service advocate explained the member’s options and the disbursement process. The member indicated that his intent was to rollover the account to an IRA with another provider; however, he did not have the necessary information for the other financial institution at that time., The member indicated that he would call back at a later date to process the rollover request. Prudential does not have a record of receiving a second telephone call or a disbursement request from the member. Therefore, the member's account balance was rolled over to an IRA with Prudential on August 29, 2014 as I indicated in the June 30,2014 letter. Prudential has attempted to contact the member to obtain additional information regarding the telephone conversation referenced in his correspondence; however, we have been unsuccessful. The existing funds in the Prudential IRA are available to be rolled over to a new account at anytime. This request can be completed via telephone by contacting a Prudential customer service advocate at [redacted] Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 9;00 pm Eastern Time.On behalf of Prudential, I hope the information provided helps resolve this matter. If you have any additional questions, please fee! free to contact me directly at ###-###-####.Sincerely,Kimberly PDirector, Participant Service Center

Review: For over five (5) years, we (my wife and I) have worked to resolve many issues with Prudential Retirement and with the NC State Treasurer (who, as Chairman of the Board of the NC Supplemental Retirement Plans [Plan]), was responsible for selecting Prudential Retirement and for ongoing over sight of Prudential Retirement’s operations in NC). The overall value of this Plan [401k and 457] is expected to exceed over $7 billion; and all these funds are from individual accounts and with individual investors. Some of the issues are • Providing inaccurate information (such as incorrect statements, i.e. 1099-R. This is an IRS regulation to have these available by January 31st) over a multi-year period • Providing inaccurate letters, forms and other documents that relate to our accounts • Providing no ultimate resolution after the company’s agents have acknowledge in writing, the issues brought to their attention One example: At the beginning of efforts in 2009 to work with Prudential thru Office of State Treasurer, we were given inaccurate info and lied -- taking 75 days to resolve a matter which should only have taken 2 weeks. The matter was that we were entitled to annuitize retirement payments under the agreement with Prudential, yet the director of the Prudential fund not only did not instruct his employees this option was available, but he father told his employees that he did not want the annuity option known so that it could be used. The record will show that I was the first and only one to select such an option. Even after we were finally able to make this transaction, every subsequent transaction of like-type was done incorrectly. Another example is that I uncovered that at least 108 other individuals did not receive timely RMD payments when they were due. Further, we have received correspondence from Prudential that is contrary to NC Supreme Court decision, and does not apply to our account The US Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed in the [redacted] case that individual investors do have the right to bring actions against companies regarding securities matter. I am concerned that other acct holders like were and are similarly situated, and are facing the same issues as we have for over 5 years; yet we individual investors are unable to deal alone with this complex matter. We are aware that you may likely direct us to take up with matter with the State. Note that we have attempted to resolve this issues with both Prudential and the State concurrent up to the present date (as recently as 5/1314), including appeal to the NC State Auditor. For this reason, we ask the SEC to open an investigation into on-going wrongdoing, lack of fiduciary responsibility, and a litany of unresolved issues. We will be happy to provide original information (documents, records, et al) and/or to meet with the Revdex.com and/or to discuss the matter by telephone at any time, and/or to respond to any questions by email or letterDesired Settlement: Provides statements on-time and as required by law; provide correct statements; stop sending incorrect forms and giving incorrect advice; provide interest on money not credited when specified; compensation for work required to resolve these issues; respond to issues in a timely manner; handle outstanding complaints as promised

Business

Response:

July 29, 2014Dear [redacted]:This letter is in response to the above complaint filed with your office by a member in the North Carolina 401(k) Plan and the North Carolina 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan (“Plans”). Prudential Retirement (“Prudential”) has been retained by the state of North Carolina as the non- discretionary service provider for both Plans.The issues raised to the Revdex.com by this member have been previously addressed in written responses and the issues resolved. Please allow me to provide further details regarding this matter.In response to the member’s claim regarding incorrect 1099R Forms, Prudential provided a corrected NC 401(k) 2011 1099R tax form to his spouse in February 2012 because it had erroneously included an amount subject to State income taxes. Additionally, these forms include text stating that payments from the member’s Plans and North Carolina annuities are exempt from North Carolina state taxes. Additionally, Prudential provided a response letter dated September 27, 2012, explaining that we were able to accommodate his request to provide two separate 1099R tax forms for the annuitized amounts from the Plans. In a letter dated March 11, 2014, we advised that the 1099R forms previously had only the plan number listed and the not plan name, but as of the date of the letter, the 1099R would now include the plan name.The member further claims there was no resolution after Prudential acknowledged in writing the issues he has brought forth. Based on prior complaints received from the member, we believe he is referencing the numerous invoices he submitted for reimbursement in excess of $52,000.00 for time and effort that he spent drafting communications and making phone calls about his retirement benefits. We believe that we have taken all appropriate measures to address his concerns. We do not believe it is appropriate for us to pay in excess of $52,000 to his financial consulting firm, in which he is a principal.The member requested to annuitize his State of North Carolina 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan benefit. Annuitization of his plan account benefit was and c[redacted]nues to be an available option under the terms of this plan. Unfortunately, the member was misinformed by Prudential about the availability of this option under this plan. This matter was clarified, and an apology was provided to the member. As requested, the member was able to partially annuitize his North Carolina 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan benefit.In regards to the member’s references to issues with subsequent transactions, we believe he is referencing an issue with his spouse’s account. His spouse, also a member in the North Carolina 401(k) Plan, received from Prudential in December 2012 the amount of $296.60 in missed earnings for a late transfer benefit payment. This information was confirmed by Prudential in a letter to him dated December 21, 2012.The member also states he did not receive timely required minimum distribution (RMD) payments from the Plans. Our records indicate that Prudential acknowledged that the member’s 2011 RMD payment from his State of North Carolina 401(k) was sent by check instead of by the requested electronic deposit. His bank account was credited by Prudential on December 21, 2012, in the amount of $.46 due to this error. This payment was considered “Other Income” and did not generate a 1099-MISC form. Additionally, our August 29, 2012, letter further acknowledged that the member’s North Carolina 457(b) RMD was processed on July 5, 2012, and included $1.01 of interest due to the payment not processing as scheduled on June 20, 2012.Below is an additional summary of the member’s RMD history which was provided to him in a letter dated October 22, 2013:• The 2011 401k RMD amount was $2,028.60 and was paid on December 21, 2011.• The 2012 401k RMD amount was $2,038.53 and was paid on December 19, 2012.• The 2013 North Carolina 457(b) Deferred Compensation RMD amount was $406.14 and was paid on June 20, 2013, and sent to him electronically on June 21, 2013.The member references “correspondence from Prudential that is contrary to the NC Supreme Court Decision”. We believe that the member is referencing the letter sent to him from Prudential on February 14, 2014, which advised him that in response to a change in state law, the North Carolina Department of Revenue informed Prudential that retirees and benefit recipients must complete and submit a new tax form or update their tax withholding. Due to this change to the North Carolina tax regulations (Session Law 2013-316, House Bill 998), Prudential was directed by the State of North Carolina to solicit individuals whose benefit would be affected by the change. The intended population for this communication were members who received a systematic payment and are subject to NC State Income Tax, and did not include this member. This information was sent to him inadvertently. Prudential sent him a letter on March 11, 2014, apologizing for this issue and confirmed his benefit was not affected by this change. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to address this matter. Prudential believes that we have taken appropriate measures to address this member’s concerns. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me directly at ###-###-####.Sincerely,Mary [redacted] Client Service Manager Total Retirement Solutions

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

Subject: Response from Prudential official - Mary [redacted], dated July 29, 2014

I am rejecting this response because:

In essence, the subject

response is no response! The subject recounts several acknowledged

mistakes, errors, late payments, last processing, and misinformation

over the last five (5) years. The subject even notes an apology plus

the subject acknowledges information was sent to me incorrectly. If

Prudential had been doing its job correctly, would the above have been

necessary to write? I think not.

I believe a better review of most of the relevant facts about our

efforts with Prudential and its named officials are summarized in the

attached letter to Travis S[redacted] of October 30, 2013 with IX (9)

Exhibits, attached to this Revdex.com Reject Business Response web submission.

Moreover, a separate letter from the State Treasurer [NC] to us dates

July 16, 2012 about our accounts states that she is "...working to

resolve [our] outstanding issues in a timely manner." If she had

resolved our issues (in concert with Prudential), we might have received

our 1099R for 2013, from Prudential, in a timely manner. Instead, a

letter to and a call to Prudential was necessary to get our 1099Rs. The

one missing finally arrived in March, 2014.

This is the type

of management/service/other issues that we have had each and every year

since 2009. [We can recall only 1 year where all 1099s arrived before

the IRS regulated dates of January 31st; notwithstanding, even then, the

1099s did not have property identification for use in our tax

preparation. Another example of poor records is in the letter from

Prudential to me ([redacted]) dated October 8, 2010. This document

has me being hired on 1-1-1900...clearly an impossibility. Incorrect

records, indeed, with me -- again -- having to call to correct. My

wife, [redacted], has a similar letter.

All of this makes one

wonder about putting the client first. [In fact, the NC Office of

Attorney General has pondered a related question about the 401K/457

System (NC) giving tax advise. That office suggests in the enclosed

letter of July 27, 2012 that the Department of State Treasurer,

Retirement System Division, that it may have been operating contrary to

tax law for years.]

These are several reasons why the subject

response is no response! As to the fact of a charge to Prudential for

all of our work to straighten out the Prudential (in their role in

concert with the 401K/457 System [NC]) over a 5 year period, please note

on my attached resume that I did have the necessary licenses in NC to

conduct such business(es), and I do.

Based on the above, the

request for payment is made again...a request bolstered by Prudential,

et al., agreeing to consider said payment once documentation was

presented--and it has been. This is only fair because, insofar as we

are aware, all of the problems recounted (and others) have been caused

by Prudential and their officials/employees.

Thank you.

Regards,

Business

Response:

August 20, 2014Dear [redacted]:This letter is in response to the consumer’s rejection of Prudential’s previous response on July 29, 2014, regarding the above referenced complaint.The additional issues raised to the Revdex.com by this member have been previously addressed in written responses provided by Prudential. Please allow me to provide further details regarding this matter.In response to the member’s claim for not receiving a 2013 1099-R tax form, Prudential, as payor, can confirm that all 2013 1099-R forms for this member were mailed in a timely manner during the week of January 13, 2014.The member references that his date of hire on file was incorrect. Upon hire, all members are immediately 100% vested in the NC 401(k) Plan, therefore the State of North Carolina does not utilize this date for vesting purposes. However, when Prudential was made aware of the incorrect date it was corrected on our recordkeeping system. Also note that there was no negative impact to member due to this incorrect date.Additionally, the member continues to request reimbursement in excess of $52,000.00 for time and effort that he spent drafting communications and placing telephone calls regarding his retirement benefits. As stated in our letter dated November 25, 2013, the member bases his claim on language in a letter written by Prudential dated August 6, 2012. The August 6, 2012 letter does not state unequivocally that Prudential will reimburse him. Instead, the letter referred to Prudential reviewing the invoices he submitted and making a determination on whether to reimburse him. The details of this matter and the member’s invoices were reviewed within Prudential, and we believe that Prudential has taken all appropriate measures to address the member’s concerns, and we do not believe it is appropriate for Prudential to pay in excess of $52,000 to his financial consulting firm in which he is the principal.With regard to the statement in the member’s statement regarding the letter dated July 27, 2012 from Robert C[redacted] to [redacted], Director of the North Carolina Department of State Treasurer Retirement Systems Division, I have confirmed with the Retirement Systems Division that they have not been acting contrary to tax law for years.Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to address this matter. Prudential believes that we have taken appropriate measures to address this member’s concerns. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me directly at ###-###-####.Sincerely,Mary [redacted] Client Service Manager Total Retirement Solutions