EAST PALESTINE — The former settlement administrator who is accused of fumbling the distribution of funds from last year’s class action derailment settlement between Norfolk Southern and residents within 10 miles of the derailment is fighting class counsel’s request to amend the court’s prior orders and restructure the process for a show cause order and civil contempt action against Kroll.

In a filing earlier this week, attorneys for the now-removed Kroll Settlement Administration LLC argued against the motion that would allow class counsel to file a motion to compel Kroll to show cause why it should not be held in contempt prior to the audit being completed.

“Class Counsel propose to have this court decide whether to hold Kroll Settlement Administration in contempt, based on alleged errors in administering the settlement, before their auditor finishes evaluating those alleged errors and before Kroll learns anything about the auditor’s work or conclusions,” attorney Christopher J. Joyce wrote. “The proposed process would be extraordinarily unfair and prejudicial to Kroll, and it would create a great deal of unnecessary work for the parties and this court.

The audit was ordered by federal Judge Benita Pearson in June when she replaced Kroll with Epiq at the request of class counsel who claimed the New York-based Kroll overpaid some personal injury claims and did not follow the plan of distribution set forth by the court when final approval was granted in August of 2024. Kroll has been criticized for a protracted payout process when it came to the personal injury damages that were promised to be distributed within 30 days over a year ago.

Class counsel had hoped that by compelling Kroll to show cause why it should not be held in contempt prior to the audit being completed, payouts could resume and the community would be provided with “valuable information about what is being done by Epiq and class counsel to make sure everyone, including the court, can rely on the accuracy of the claims process.”

Joyce argued the ongoing audit has no impact on that transparency.

“Class counsel’s stated goal can be accomplished by filing a detailed update and posting it to the settlement website,” he wrote. “Given that class counsel’s goal can be accomplished by alternative means, the request to significantly alter the measured process ordered by this court is not justifiable.”

Joyce argued that asking Kroll to defend itself against allegations without knowing what those allegations are is next to impossible.

“Under their proposal, [class counsel] would accuse Kroll of contempt without an audit report providing specific details or support for their claims,” Joyce wrote. “Kroll would then be forced to respond to these accusations without knowledge of any specific details or support from the audit report and this court would be expected to rule without the benefit of the findings, reasoning and conclusions of the auditor it has requested.”

The completed audit is needed, Joyce said, before contempt can be decided.

“The report will allow both sides and this court to understand the auditor’s position on the ‘nature, scope, and financial ramifications of any miscalculation errors that may have been made’ by Kroll,” Joyce doubled down. “Class Counsel will then use the report as the basis for their contempt motion. Kroll, in turn, will know the specifics of the accusations against it when responding to them. And this court will have a complete picture of the facts and the parties’ contentions when it makes its decision.”

Aside from overpaying claimants, Kroll is also accused of improper denial of claims, errors in Kroll’s underlying data, and applying multipliers that are not contained in the Plan of Distribution that was to utilize an allocated point system to in determining individual awards based on weighted factors, including distance from the derailment site, age of claimant and severity of symptoms reported.

Class counsel also asked for sanctions against Kroll after the audit is submitted. Kroll had already billed $2,361,940.74 for administrative expenses in August 2024.