Topeka ? State pension fund managers reported Monday that they are continuing to monitor companies that do significant business in the war-torn country of Sudan, and they continue to divest their holdings in those firms as required by a 2007 state law.

Still, the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System still has nearly $13 million invested in firms that meet the criteria requiring divestment, but those are all indirect investments through accounts similar to mutual funds that make broad, diversified investments.

That information was part of an annual report required under the 2007 act, which KPERS officials delivered Monday to the Joint Committee on Pensions, Investments and Benefits.

Kansas lawmakers passed that bill in response to the government-sponsored genocide that had occurred in the Darfur region of Sudan earlier in the decade. It was passed about the same time that President George W. Bush’s administration imposed economic sanctions on the African nation.

The state law essentially prohibits KPERS from investing in any company that has “active business operations” in Sudan, especially oil and energy companies that were either actively complicit in the genocide or failed to take significant action such as a boycott or protest of the government in response to the killings.

Since passage of the law, KPERS has contracted with two outside firms that specialize in socially responsible investing, Institutional Shareholder Services and EIRIS, to compile a list, which is updated monthly, of companies that meet the statute’s criteria.

It also may not invest in any companies that supply military equipment within the borders of Sudan.

Whenever the KPERS Board of Trustees learns that it does have investments in companies that meet the criteria, it is required to notify that company and give its officials an opportunity to respond or take substantial action opposing the Sudanese government within 90 days.

If the company doesn’t respond, or does not take appropriate action, KPERS is required to sell off its holdings in that company.

One exception to the rule, however, is when the investment is made through an “externally and actively managed commingled fund.” In those cases, the board is only required to ask that the fund manager either remove the KPERS money from the banned company or transfer KPERS’ money to another fund.

During 2014, a number of companies were added to the list of firms meeting the divestment criteria. One of those was China Poly Group Corporation, a state-owned company that, according to the report, holds a mining license in Sudan and reportedly has been involved in oil exploration and the sale of weapons to Sudan.

The report said KPERS officials contacted the company, as required under the statute, but did not receive a response within 90 days. KPERS has since divested its holding in that company.

Another company added to the list in 2014 was MAN SE, a German mechanical engineering firm. But based on the company’s response, KPERS staff determined that it had taken substantial action to either boycott or curtail its activities in Sudan, and so KPERS did not divest its holdings in that company.

Before the 2007 law was enacted, KPERS reported having $15.2 million invested in companies that meet the statute’s criteria for divestment, or 0.11 percent of the entire fund’s portfolio. That included $9.7 million in direct investments and $5.2 million in commingled accounts.

As of May 31, 2015, the report said, KPERS had only $12.9 million invested in such firms, or 0.08 percent of its total portfolio. All of those investments were through commingled accounts.