"The nine-count complaint, filed Feb. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, challenges a settlement agreement between [a company sponsoring an ESOP] and its liability insurers, which allegedly thwarted the plan's ability to collect on its $6.5 million judgment [against the company's owner].... According to the participant, the ... attorneys negotiated a settlement agreement between the company and its insurers that required the insurers to use the policy coverage to pay the company's legal fees in defending twin suits challenging the ESOP valuation. The defendants allegedly kept this agreement a secret from the plaintiffs in the ESOP suits, causing [the firm] to continue racking up legal fees that ultimately depleted the amount of promised coverage, leaving nothing left to pay the eventual $6.5 million judgment in favor of the plan."