Hanson, Bridgett, et al settlement

Submitted by Joe Flynn

   At 10 AM on May 31, Judge Wm. Pate conducted the Settlement Hearing on the proposed settlement of the David Wood and retirees and SDCERS v Hanson, Bridgett et al. This is a malpractice lawsuit against a former fiduciary counsel to SDCERS during Manager's Proposal II process. All retirees should have received a copy in February of this proposed settlement.
   This was the second Hearing by Judge Pate. He earlier continued the Hearing in order to allow the new Retirement Board an opportunity to review the settlement. The Board considered and approved the settlement.
   At the May 31 hearing, a number of individuals appeared and requested to opt out of the settlement. Diann Shipione, requested that the settlement not be approved due to the fact that it covered all advice previously given SDCERS by the attorney's who were the focus of the malpractice suit. Two Retirees requested to opt out based on similar logic. Attorney's representing the one current and five former Pension Board members now under indictment, also appeared to request that their clients be permitted to opt out of the settlement or requesting a 10 day stay. An attorney representing the unclassified and unrepresented employees appeared to object to the fees listed for the attorney's in the case.
   On the matter of fees, Judge Pate indicated that outside counsel for SDCERS would be seeking fees from the Retirement Board and that any fees paid attorney's are outside of the settlement. He stated that he had earlier rejected the settlement based on attorney's fees and then separated the fees from the settlement.
   Attorney Michael Conger, representing David Wood and retirees, stated that this is a "Limited Fund" case and all claims were required to be consolidated. The settlement was limited to $15 million, which is the amount of the malpractice insurance and that further litigation would only further defray that fund leaving less money to go to the Pension Fund.
   Judge Pate did not seem inclined to grant requests to opt out or delay the settlement. When asked when he would have a decision, he replied, "Ninety days is the maximum time to reach a decision in this type of case. I will have a decision in less time than that."
  From my observation, Judge Pate appeared to have the case firmly in hand and I believe he will have a decision much sooner than 90 days. And although the attorney's fees will not be decided by Judge Pate, it is hoped that the final fees would also be made public at that time; but I'm guessing on that one.
   I will try to follow up when Judge Pate's decision is final.
Joe Flynn