Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Litigation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board packet recommends review of resolution to join nationwide PowerSchool data-breach lawsuit

Benton Harbor Area Schools Board of Education · October 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A staff report in the board packet asked trustees to review documents that would let the district join MDL No. 3149 litigation related to a December 2024 PowerSchool breach; the packet describes contingency-fee representation and requires review of fee contracts before a resolution is presented at the regular board meeting.

A staff report in the board packet asked the Benton Harbor Area Schools Board of Education to review proposed contract documents that would allow the district to join nationwide litigation over a December 2024 PowerSchool data breach.

The report, included as staff report B1, summarizes national filings in MDL No. 3149 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and states that plaintiffs'c counsel say the breach affected millions of students and staff and involved names, contact information and sensitive records. The packet lists Friends Law Group as counsel representing school clients on a contingency basis and notes Friends would receive 30% of any recovery and be reimbursed costs from recoveries. The packet also references a separate referral firm described in the materials (identified in the packet as TRUN/Truman) whose role is limited to client referral and not co-counsel.

The staff presentation to trustees did not request immediate approval but recommended that trustees read the enclosed resolution, the attorney-client fee contract and related materials and raise any concerns at the regular board meeting, where the resolution would be presented for board action. The packet cautions there is no guaranteed recovery and that participation terms are set out in the attached fee agreements.

The board did not act at the work session; the staff report asked trustees to review the materials and bring questions to the regular meeting. Trustees and administrators suggested the board will discuss the contract terms and any perceived cost or conflict concerns before any vote.

What happens next: The resolution and attorney-client fee contract in staff report B1 are slated for the regular board meeting where trustees may vote to authorize participation. The staff report recommends trustees review the packet thoroughly and raise any specific legal or financial questions in advance of that action.