Connect with us

Montana

Class action lawsuit claims Montana discriminates against out-of-state financial advisers – Daily Montanan

Published

on

Class action lawsuit claims Montana discriminates against out-of-state financial advisers – Daily Montanan


A Montana attorney has filed a class-action lawsuit against the state, the Montana Department of Revenue and the state auditor’s office for what they say is an illegal, unconstitutional fee charged to more than 100,000 investment advisers and representatives who live outside the Treasure State.

Even more, the lawsuit, filed in Lewis and Clark County on Friday, says that the 2019 Legislature knew that the law likely violated the privileges and immunities clause of the United States Constitution, but passed it anyway.

That constitutional clause prohibits treating residents from other states differently than residents in-state, and House Bill 694 sought to increase the licensing fees for out-of-state residents to $100 while keeping the fees for Montana-based investment advisers at $50.

Rep. Jim Hamilton, D-Bozeman, told fellow lawmakers in 2019 that, “the reason for raising this fee is that we have a group of people who are not contributing to the economy they are taking advantage of with their businesses, and therefore, I think it appropriate that we not sell Montana so cheaply.”

Advertisement

He said that because those same advisers don’t pay income tax or property tax in Montana, they should be charged more.

Different lawmakers and witnesses who testified in 2019 raised issues of legality with the bill, and it was even stopped in the Montana Senate because of constitutional concerns.

However, in 2019, Sen. Steve Fitzpatrick, now the Senate Majority Leader and a Republican from Great Falls, brought it back to life when it was eventually passed as part of the overall budget.

Because licensing fees are handled in a uniform way with a payment portal that’s consistent throughout the states, and because no other state differentiated between resident and non-resident licensees, Montana also developed a system where Montana resident licensees could apply for a $50 refund, while out-of-state licensees were ineligible.

In 2019, the state estimated that around 2,200 of the 108,000 financial adviser licensees were Montana-based, meaning that more than 97% financial advisers registered in the Big Sky State do not live in-state.

Advertisement

The class-action challenge is being brought by Thomas Strobhar, who has challenged laws and business practices in several different states on different topics. He is being represented by former state lawmaker and attorney Matthew Monforton.

“The committee knew that the discriminatory fee structure in HB 694 was unconstitutional, yet approved it anyway,” the lawsuit said.

The Montana Supreme Court has upheld the privileges and immunities clause of the U.S. Constitution, and said in 1981 that the “rights of nonresidents to ‘ply their trade, practice their occupation, or pursue a common calling in the state’” is something that shall be “free from discrimination based upon state residency.”

Even though lawmakers pointed out that Montana and other states may charge non-residents fees for recreational licenses, like hunting, that is limited to recreational, not occupational licenses.

“Montana’s policy of imposing discriminatory fees upon nonresident investment adviser representatives and securities salesperson (does not) bear a substantial relationship to any important state interest,” the lawsuit said.

Advertisement

The lawsuit asks that the courts declare the measure unconstitutional and issue an injunction prohibiting the state from charging a different fee for non-resident advisers as Montana-based advisers.

The lawsuit also seeks an award of damages to Strobhar and other class members.

If Strobhar and the class-action suit was successful, it would mean the state would have to disgorge as much as $25 million that Montana has collected from these fees  since 2019.

Strobhar, a resident of Ohio, is no stranger to being in the middle of controversy.

Strobhar has authored more than 70 shareholder resolutions to ban corporate support for pornography, religious bigotry, fetal tissue research, abortifacients, Planned Parenthood, and policies he considers hostile to marriage. His resolutions have changed the way several large businesses operate, including American Express, AT&T, Berkshire Hathaway, General Mills and Target.

Advertisement

Last year, Strobhar also led an initiative that would force The Walt Disney Company to disclose charitable contributions of more than $10,000. Though Disney fought against that, arguing that Strobhar was attempting micromanagement of the company, the Securities and Exchange Commission ultimately allowed the a vote on the resolution.

240112 Complaint



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Montana

Wind damage highlights insurance challenges for Montana homeowners

Published

on

Wind damage highlights insurance challenges for Montana homeowners


It’s the talk of the town this week — powerful winds ripped the roof off Lincoln Elementary School on Sunday, leaving students, teachers, and residents in shock.

The incident has sparked concern among homeowners who are now worried about how such weather damage could impact their own homes—and what their insurance would cover.

According to Tauna Locatelli, owner of Advantage Insurance, most insurance policies have a set deductible for things like fire or theft, but wind and hail damage deductibles are often much higher, or even based on a percentage of a property’s value.

Quentin Shores reports – watch the video here:

Advertisement

Wind damage highlights insurance challenges for Montana homeowners

“Right now our industry is going through a really challenging time, especially when it comes to wind and hail in Montana. Several carriers are going to a standard ‘all peril’ deductible for everything other than wind and hail. So, it could be $1,000 for all but wind and hail, $2,500 wind and hail,” Locatelli explained.

A deductible is the amount homeowners must pay before insurance covers the rest. For wind and hail, that deductible can be steep.

Advertisement

“Some companies are going 1 or 2% of a coverage value, so that’s the building value. If it’s insured for $500,000 and you have a 1% deductible, you’re looking at a $5,000 deductible for wind and hail, which is what we get in Montana,” Locatelli said.

It’s important for homeowners to know their deductible—if repairs cost less than the deductible, insurance won’t pay anything.

Filing small claims can also impact your rates; Locatelli said, “Because if you have a $3,000 patch job claim and you have a $5,000 deductible, you really don’t want to file that because you’re not going to get anything in. That claim is going to follow your insurance record for five years.”

Age of property factors in as well. If you have an older roof, insurance may not fully cover its replacement.

“You’ve now lived half the roof life. Well, insurance is about indemnity and putting you back in the same condition you were in before the loss. You can’t put a 16-year-old roof on a home, so at 16 years, they’ll now pay 50% of that roof instead of 100% because it’s already lived half of its life. And then it drops each year as it goes by,” Locatelli added.

Advertisement

The bottom line: Keep your property maintained, review your insurance policy, and think carefully before filing a claim—especially as Montana faces more intense weather.





Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Missoula and Western Montana neighbors: Obituaries for March 11

Published

on

Missoula and Western Montana neighbors: Obituaries for March 11





Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Montana AG letter alleges Helena violates law banning ‘sanctuary cities’

Published

on

Montana AG letter alleges Helena violates law banning ‘sanctuary cities’


HELENA — On Monday, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen sent a letter to the City of Helena claiming the municipality is not in compliance with the state’s law banning “sanctuary cities.” The letter comes just under a month after the State of Montana launched an investigation into a city resolution on Helena Police policy and Helena’s involvement in federal immigration enforcement.

In the letter, Knudsen laid out the ways he believes the city’s resolution violated state law. The attorney general gave Helena 15 days to respond or reverse the policy. If the city does not comply, his office will pursue legal action.

“Helena’s resolution appears to contain blatant violations of this law,” wrote Knudsen.

MTN News

Advertisement

On January 26, 2026, the City of Helena adopted a resolution clarifying when and how the Helena Police Department will cooperate with federal immigration officials. The vote was 4 to 1. The Helena commission seats and the mayor are elected in non-partisan races.

In the letter, Knudsen alleges the resolution established “a broad sanctuary city policy” that seeks to protect every illegal immigrant, regardless of whether the individual had committed a serious crime or not. The state further claims the resolution gives illegal immigrants “special privileges” in plea deals and establishes a “free-for-all policy” where a police officer can request the unmasking of Department of Homeland Security and ICE officers.

Knudsen has requested that the City of Helena, in their response, specifically describe in detail how the resolution complies with Montana law, provide emails and correspondence from city staff and the commission regarding the resolution.

Helena City manager Alana Lake told MTN in a statement: “The City of Helena is aware of the issues being raised by the Attorney General’s Office and is reviewing the matter. While we cannot discuss the details of a potential legal issue, the City is committed to transparency and compliance with the law. The City takes these matters seriously and will continue to cooperate with the appropriate authorities while remaining focused on serving our community.”

City of Helena Commission Chambers

MTN News

Advertisement

Passed in 2021, Montana House Bill 200 prohibits a state agency or local government from implementing any policy that prevents employees or departments from communicating with federal agencies regarding immigration or citizenship status for lawful purposes. It also states governments must comply with immigration detainer requests if they are lawfully made.

HB 200 was backed by Republicans and passed with only Republican votes. Gov. Greg Gianforte signed the legislation into law on March 31, 2021.

Passage of the resolution by the Helena City Commission has drawn ire from conservative voices in Montana politics and on the national level.

ICE protest in Helena

MTN News

The resolution said the commission supported the Helena Police Department avoiding “committing its resources to federal action for which it has no authority,” such as entering into an agreement with the federal government to directly enforce immigration laws. Under federal law, immigration enforcement is conducted by federal agencies under the Department of Homeland Security. However, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, state and local governments can voluntarily enter into 287 (g) agreements with the federal government that allow them to enforce immigration laws.

Advertisement

The commission further supported HPD’s policy not to stop, detain, or arrest a person solely on suspected violations of immigration law, including assisting other agencies in an arrest based solely on immigration law.

DEEPER LOOK: Helena has seen a growing debate over ICE and local police involvement

In the resolution, the commission also supported an HPD officer, using their own discretion, requesting the identification and unmasking of a Department of Homeland Security Officer if the HPD officer “feels it will not be interfering with the actions of federal officers exercising their jurisdiction.”

“This adversarial relationship by local law enforcement toward federal officers itself undermines public safety and forces immigration officers to fear for their safety when they are simply carrying out their lawful duties,” wrote Knudsen.

The resolution further supports the City of Helena’s policy not to consider immigration consequences in a plea agreement with a defendant.

Advertisement
Montana state flag

Mack Carmack, MTN News

Montana state flag

The commission also supports the City of Helena not disclosing any sensitive information about any person – including immigration status, sexual orientation, or social security number – except as required by law.

“This is a restriction that directly conflicts with Montana’s prohibition on sanctuary jurisdictions, specifically ‘sending to, receiving from, exchanging with, or maintaining for a federal, state, or local government entity information regarding a person’s citizenship or immigration status for a lawful purpose,’” the attorney general wrote.

If a government is found to be violating Montana’s law banning “sanctuary cities”, the state could fine them $10,000 every five days, prevent them from receiving new grants from the state, and have their projects with the state re-prioritized. A government in violation can avoid penalties by becoming compliant with the law within 14 days of being notified of the violation.

Read the full letter from the Montana Attorney General to the City of Helena:

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending