EAST PALESTINE  The former administrator of the $600 million settlement for East Palestine train derailment victims has formally opposed efforts by victims’ lawyers to speed up legal action intended to recover their fees.

In a filing with the U.S. District Court, attorneys for Kroll Settlement Administration argued that the proposal to restructure the contempt process is "extraordinarily unfair and prejudicial" and would create "unnecessary and wasteful inefficiencies" for the court and the parties involved.

The dispute centers on how to hold Kroll accountable for errors that led to payment delays for thousands of individuals awaiting compensation more than a year after the settlement was announced.

Victims' attorneys, also known as the Class Counsel, recently requested permission to pursue a civil contempt action against Kroll in two phases. This approach was intended to immediately seek the return of all fees and costs paid to Kroll, rather than waiting for a comprehensive, court-ordered audit to be completed.

The lawyers’ original motion acknowledged community distress over stalled payments and argued that the ongoing review continues to uncover additional and fundamental errors that are prolonging the distribution of the settlement fund. The motion asserted that the errors go beyond simple "mathematical errors," including "improper denial of claims, errors in Kroll's underlying data, and applying multipliers that are not contained in the Court's Order."

The Class Counsel proposes filing a motion for contempt now, based on alleged evidence that Kroll violated the Plan of Distribution, to seek only the return of all fees and costs paid to the company. The attorneys would file a second motion later, after the qualified auditor completes its review, to seek precise financial penalties against Kroll once all errors are calculated.

Kroll's opposition motion, filed Monday, requests U.S. District Judge Benita Pearson deny the Class Counsel’s attempt to amend the court’s existing order.

Kroll’s lawyers argue that the court's prior order correctly mandated that the first step must be the completion of the auditor's report. That report, they note, is intended to explain the "nature, scope, and financial ramifications of any miscalculation errors."

Allowing Class Counsel to move forward now, Kroll argues, would force the administrator to respond to serious contempt accusations without having seen the detailed findings and support from the audit report that the allegations are based on.

"Kroll cannot reasonably respond to Class Counsel's allegations without seeing the finished audit report on which those allegations are supposed to be based," the opposition filing states.

Furthermore, Kroll warned that the two-phase approach could lead to disorder. It would require one complete round of briefing and a court decision on the immediate fee recovery, potentially followed by a second round of briefing and decision—and possibly two separate appeals—once the auditor’s report is finally submitted.

Kroll suggested that if Class Counsel’s primary goal is to update the court and the community on the audit's progress, that can be accomplished by simply filing a detailed update and posting it to the settlement website, rather than altering the measured legal process.

The current delay and legal maneuvering stem from a June 11 order by Judge Pearson, who removed Kroll as the court-appointed administrator after Class Counsel reported errors and complaints about payment timing.

Judge Pearson’s order found "sufficient reason to believe" that Kroll had not correctly implemented the "Plan of Distribution," the detailed rulebook for dividing the settlement money. Alleged errors include Kroll possibly miscalculating the dollar value of compensation "points" for victims exposed to chemicals and failing to treat claims from the Village of East Palestine differently from the larger 44413 zip code area, as required by the plan.

Following Kroll’s removal, the judge appointed Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., as the new administrator and directed Class Counsel to hire an independent expert to thoroughly review Kroll's past work.

The payment process, especially for personal injury claims, was slow even before Kroll’s removal. Residents had reported receiving confusing or denial letters based on alleged faulty criteria.

The attorneys' latest motion reflects pressure from a community that has spent months waiting for the promised funds to be correctly distributed. The decision now rests with Judge Pearson on whether to approve the restructured contempt timeline.