YOUNGSTOWN - Attorneys representing victims of the East Palestine train derailment have filed court documents accusing the former settlement administrator of outsourcing claims processing to India without oversight and utilizing unauthorized mathematical formulas to calculate payments.

In a brief filed Dec. 1 in U.S. District Court, the legal team representing the community presented new evidence to support their motion to hold Kroll Settlement Administration LLC in civil contempt. The filing requests that the court order Kroll to return more than $9.5 million in fees paid from the $600 million settlement fund established after the 2023 Norfolk Southern derailment.

The latest filings introduce allegations regarding Kroll’s operational management and data security, expanding the scope of the dispute beyond previous arguments regarding payment calculation methods.

Court documents allege Kroll "outsourced administration of the Settlement to India," a detail the filing states was not previously known to the court or the parties involved. The motion argues that the operational decision contributed to Kroll's alleged failure to properly manage the distribution process.

The brief cites a Nov. 13 deposition of Scott Fenwick, a senior director at Kroll. According to the text, Fenwick testified that Kroll used reviewers in India to process claims but "was not aware whether anyone from Kroll’s executive teams oversaw the India portion of the claims review."

The filing asserts this lack of supervision allowed deviations from the court-approved plan to continue for nearly eight months.

The brief also raises questions regarding the security of personal data. In a footnote, counsel noted that Kroll’s representative could not specify the data privacy measures in place for the reviewers in India. The documents question whether personal identifying information—such as Social Security numbers, bank account details, and medical records—was adequately safeguarded during the overseas review.

Kroll has not filed a written response to the allegation. 21 News reached out to Kroll for a response to the allegations, but is waiting for a reply.

The brief also alleges that Kroll applied mathematical formulas not included in the official "Plan of Distribution" approved by U.S. District Judge Benita Pearson.

The settlement plan utilized a points-based system where claimants received credit for factors such as the severity of their symptoms or their proximity to the derailment site. While these points were intended to be adjusted using specific "multipliers," the filing alleges that the new administrator, Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, discovered Kroll applied multipliers that did not exist in the plan documents.

The motion contends these were not simple calculation errors but instances where the administrator "invented and applied" unauthorized formulas.

In its opposition filing submitted before the reply, Kroll denied the contempt allegations. The company argued it followed specific instructions provided by counsel to issue fixed payments of $25,000 to eligible residents. Kroll contended that using a proportional system, reducing payments if the total number of claims exceeded the budget, would have contradicted public statements made by the legal team.

Kroll acknowledged specific "inadvertent calculation errors," admitting that an employee misunderstood instructions regarding distance multipliers for certain residents and made mistakes regarding chemical exposure data.

Kroll estimated that these errors resulted in approximately $4.8 million in overpayments. The company stated it self-reported these issues and offered to reimburse the fund. Kroll argued that such errors "do not justify a finding of contempt," noting the error rate was approximately 0.8% of the total fund.

Advocates for the residents rejected that defense. They argued that Kroll charged at least $3.2 million specifically for calculation-related work, yet failed to perform that core function correctly. The reply contends the errors resulted in a financial impact significantly higher than Kroll estimated.

The brief also challenges Kroll’s assertion that it warned counsel early in 2025 that the $120 million personal injury fund might be depleted.

Kroll maintains it raised concerns about the fund’s solvency this past spring. However, the filing points to inconsistencies in Fenwick's testimony regarding the timing of those warnings. According to the documents, Fenwick testified he informed attorneys about the potential shortfall on "May 6th of 2025," but in a subsequent declaration, stated he recalled raising concerns in late March or mid-April.

The motion argues that Kroll produced 250 pages of communication but failed to produce a single written document confirming the earlier warnings.

The request currently before the court asks Judge Pearson to order Kroll to disgorge, or return, the $9.5 million it collected in fees. Kroll opposes the request, arguing that disgorgement should not be punitive. The company states that a significant portion of the fees covered legitimate expenses such as postage, call center operations, and website maintenance.

The legal team disputes the allegation, noting that Kroll’s invoices include charges for processing claim forms. They argue that because the data entry from those forms contained errors that the new administrator must now verify and correct, Kroll should not retain fees for that work.

Arguments regarding outsourcing, unauthorized multipliers, and fee disgorgement were presented to Judge Pearson during a hearing on Dec. 5. The judge is considering the matter.

If the court finds Kroll liable for contempt, a second motion would follow to determine the precise financial damages owed to the class.