Former Aerotech Inc. employees who have accused the motion control solutions company of mismanaging its employee stock ownership plan urged a Pennsylvania federal court Wednesday to certify a class of plan beneficiaries and participants, saying they easily satisfied requirements for class certification.

Proposed representatives of the putative class said in a motion for class certification that there are at least 500 members of the class that, if certified, would cover all participants and beneficiaries of the Aerotech Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust since April 24, 2018, excluding plan fiduciaries.

They said that because they lodged the lawsuit on behalf of the plan, "virtually every question of fact and law is common to the class."

"This case arises from defendants' unified course of conduct that caused the ESOP to lose millions of dollars in investment earnings, with each member of the class bearing a pro rata share of that loss," the current and former plan participants wrote.

They said that common questions include whether Aerotech and the plan's governing committee acted as fiduciaries, whether the committee breached its fiduciary duties by failing to prudently invest the plan's other investments, whether Aerotech violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by not monitoring the committee's compliance with its fiduciary duties, whether participants thus suffer injury and what the measure of the resulting losses is.

Such common questions "more than suffice for commonality," they said.

Former plan participants Stephanie Schultz and Chad Huffer, along with current participant Kevin Plummer, filed suit against Aerotech in April 2024, filing an amended class action complaint in July 2024.

Schultz worked for Aerotech between 2016 and 2019, while Plummer and Huffer worked at the company between 2012 and 2023 and between 2008 and 2020, respectively, according to their latest complaint.

The three allege that Aerotech and the plan's governing committee failed to prudently invest and monitor the plan's general investments account, which holds nonstock assets in the plan. They claim that the company, instead, intentionally made conservative investments to ensure that the plan had enough cash to satisfy the company's repurchase obligations.

"Among other things, defendants appear to have failed to consider how long [other investment account] funds would be held; whether participants had accumulated sufficient assets for retirement; the differential in long-term average returns among various asset classes; or how to best manage risks such as the specific risk posed by the ESOP's concentration in Aerotech stock," they asserted in their latest complaint.

They alleged that Aerotech and the committee "were guided by improper, self-serving considerations concerning [other investment account] investments."

In the motion for class certification, the current and former plan participants said that because they are suing on behalf of the plan, their claims are not only typical of the claims of the class, as required for class certification, but are "identical to those of the unnamed class members."

"This is a representative action asserting claims that belong not to plaintiffs, but to the ESOP," the motion states. "The ESOP's claims would be the same if asserted by any member of the putative class, resting on the same facts and legal theories."

Typicality is thus "easily satisfied," according to the motion.

Also met is the requirement that representative parties be able to fairly and adequately protect the class's interests, the former and current plan participants argued.

They said that there aren't any conflicts of interest between them and the class they seek to represent.

Proposed counsel from litigation boutique firm Engstrom Lee LLC are also qualified to represent the class, they said.

Engstrom Lee specializes in ERISA class actions and was "founded by attorneys who formerly practiced at a large class action firm in its nationally recognized ERISA practice group, during which time they recovered more than $300 million for their clients," the former and current participants said in their motion.

They said that the firm's attorneys have the skills and experience necessary to serve as class counsel and have collectively been appointed as class counsel in dozens of ERISA class actions.

"Throughout this litigation plaintiffs' counsel has zealously represented the proposed class and dedicated substantial resources to this action and are ready to continue to do so," they said.

In February, U.S. District Court Judge W. Scott Hardy largely denied a motion by Aerotech and the ESOP committee to dismiss the former and current plan participants' first amended class action.

Judge Hardy referred the case to mediation in late May. The court order referring the case to alternative dispute resolution stated that the court will establish a deadline for the completion of the ADR conferences after ruling on the motion for class certification.

Counsel for the proposed class declined to comment.

Counsel Aerotech did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Wednesday.

The proposed class is represented by Jennifer K. Lee and Carl F. Engstrom of Engstrom Lee LLC and Nicholas D. Thompson of Casey Jones Law Firm.

Aerotech is represented by Andrew D. Salek-Raham, Larry M. Blocho Jr. and Lars C. Golumbic of Groom Law Group.

The case is Stephanie Schultz et al. v. Aerotech Inc. et al., case number 2:24-cv-00618, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.