A Proposed Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court in the case of Rosner et al v. United States. This lawsuit is a class action on behalf of all persons who have claimed (or at any time could claim) any interest in the personal property on the Hungarian Gold Train. The Hungarian Gold Train was a train of approximately 24 freight cars that contained personal property taken, seized, confiscated or stolen by the Hungarian government from Jewish Hungarian victims of Nazi persecution and their heirs. For a summary of the Settlement, go to “Summary of Your Rights.”

A hearing occurred before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Patricia A. Seitz, presiding, to assist the court in determining whether to preliminarily approve of the Proposed Settlement Agreement. Class Counsel, the United States Government, as well as the Notice Provider for the Hungarian Gold Train Settlement (as designated by the parties) responded to a series of questions from the Court regarding the Proposed Settlement Agreement. Several named plaintiffs also offered comments about the Proposed Settlement during the hearing. Subsequent to the hearing, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement. To view the Court Order regarding the Settlement, go to "Memorandum and Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement," in Key Court Documents.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Federal District Judge Patricia A. Seitz presiding, preliminarily approved the Hungarian Gold Train Settlement Agreement in a written order dated April 8, 2005. To review the Settlement Agreement, go to "Key Court Documents."

May 2, 2005 – August 1, 2005 constituted the Notice Period, a ninety-day period during which Class Members were notified about the Settlement Agreement and had the opportunity, in written form, to comment about and object to the Settlement Agreement, as well as request to be excluded from the Settlement.

On or around May 2, 2005, at the beginning of the Notice Period, a summary of the Settlement was sent to many Class Members by mail. In addition, information was made available in newspaper ads, the internet, and through Jewish and survivor organizational networks. Class Members that wanted to comment about or object to the Settlement had to do so in writing by August 1, 2005. Similarly, Class Members that wanted to be excluded from (that is, opt out of) the Settlement had to request to be excluded from the Settlement in writing by August 1, 2005, the end of the Notice Period. Before September 26, 2005, the Court decided whether Class Members that submitted objections, in writing, to the Settlement by August 1, 2005 and requested to speak would be able to do so at the Fairness Hearing on September 26, 2005, at the United District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and had such Class Members contacted and apprised of their opportunity to appear and speak.

The Proposed Detailed Plan of Allocation describes how the approximately USD $21 million will be proportionately allocated among countries, as well as distributed within countries through the appropriate social service programs, to benefit certain Class Members that are in need. The plan developed by the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, in consultation with Class Counsel, Class Representatives and others, was filed with the Court on June 10, 2005. The Proposed Detailed Plan of Allocation was made available on this website on or around June 10, 2005.

Class Counsel - the plaintiffs' attorneys - in this case filed an application for fees with the Court related to the lawsuit and its Settlement. Class Counsel sought to obtain payment which includes all fees, costs and expenses that it incurred in the prosecution of the lawsuit, in an amount not to exceed USD $3.85 million. The petition for fees is subject to Court review and approval. The fee petition was made available on this website on or around June 17, 2005.

The last date that comments about, objections to, and requests to be excluded from the Settlement, in writing, could be postmarked was August 1, 2005. Class Members that did not request to be excluded from the Settlement, in writing, by the deadline of August 1, 2005, are now bound by the terms of the Settlement, as it was approved by the Court, and they may be able to benefit from the social service projects funded by the Settlement.

If a significant number of Hungarian victims of Nazi persecution had requested exclusion from the Settlement during the May 2, 2005 - August 1, 2005 Notice Period, the United States Government had the right to terminate the Settlement or reduce the amount paid to the Settlement Fund. Had it selected either option, the United States was required to notify the Court, at the latest, by 5:00 p.m. on September 12, 2005. Notwithstanding the number of Hungarian victims of Nazi persecution who excluded themselves from the Settlement, the United States chose not to exercise its rights to withdraw from or reduce its cash payment to the Settlement Fund.

A Fairness Hearing was held in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 301 N. Miami Avenue, Florida 33128, to consider whether to give final approval to the Settlement. The scheduled date and time of the Fairness Hearing -- September 26, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. -- provided Class Members with sufficient time, from May 2 - August 1, 2005, to review and comment upon the Settlement. Any Class Member that wished to speak at the Fairness Hearing was required to submit a request in writing for consideration by the Judge by August 1, 2005. At the Fairness Hearing, the Court heard argument and comments from Class Counsel, the United States Government, the Notice Provider, interested parties, and several Class Members, either personally or through counsel. The Court considered those arguments and comments, as well as the Settlement Agreement, the Notice Plan, the Plan of Distribution, the Proposed Detailed Plan of Allocation, the Fee Petition, the Motion for Final Approval, the Declaration of the Notice Provider, and the objections and comments to the Settlement filed by various Class Members. As a result, the Court, among other matters, approved of the Settlement Agreement, including the Detailed Plan of Allocation, as a fair, reasonable and adequate compromise of the claims against the United States, and approved Class Counsel’s petition for attorney’s fees.