Retirement: Court approves settlement over ESOP

Where a putative class-action lawsuit was filed over alleged losses to an Employee Stock Ownership Plan, or ESOP, and the court found the settlement and plan of allocation were fair, reasonable and adequate, the settlement was given final approval.

Background

This class action came before the court for hearing on June 4, 2024, to determine the fairness of the proposed settlement presented to the court and the subject of this court’s order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement.

Analysis

The court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the class action and over all parties, including all members of the settlement class. For the sole purpose of settling and resolving the class action, the court certifies the class action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court finds for the sole purpose of settling and resolving the class action that: (a) the settlement class is ascertainable from records kept with respect to the ESOP and from other objective criteria, and the settlement class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are one or more questions of law and/or fact common to the settlement class; (c) the claims of the class representative are typical of the claims of the settlement class for which the class representative seeks certification and (d) the class representative will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the settlement class.

The court also finds for the sole purpose of settling and resolving the class action that: (e) the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the settlement class would create a risk of: (i) inconsistent or varying adjudications as to individual settlement class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the claims asserted in the class action or (ii) adjudications as to individual settlement class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications, or substantially impair or impede the ability of such persons to protect their interests and (f) class counsel are capable of fairly and adequately representing the interests of the settlement class.

The court hereby appoints Janice A. Moore as class representative for the settlement class and the Krudys Law Firm PLC, Marie Carter PLC and Butler Curwood PLC as class counsel for the settlement class. The court hereby finds that the settlement class has received proper and adequate notice of the settlement, the fairness hearing, class counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and expenses and for the service award to the class representative and the plan of allocation.

The court hereby approves the settlement and orders that the settlement shall be consummated and implemented in accordance with its terms and conditions. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the court finds that the settlement embodied in the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate to the ESOP and the settlement class.

The plan of allocation is finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate. The settlement administrator shall distribute the net settlement amount in accordance with the plan of allocation and the settlement agreement. The settlement administrator shall have final authority to determine the share of the net settlement amount to be allocated to each class member, provided it does so in accordance with the plan of allocation approved by the court. All requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act have been met.

The releases and covenants not to sue set forth in the settlement agreement, together with the definitions contained in the settlement agreement relating thereto, are expressly incorporated herein in all respects. The operative complaint and all claims asserted therein in the class action are hereby dismissed with prejudice and without attorney’s fees or costs to any of the parties and released parties other than as provided for in the settlement agreement.

Final approval granted.

Moore v. Blue Ridge Bankshares Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-00045, June 4, 2024. WDVA at Charlottesville (Ballou). VLW 024-3-302. 9 pp.