International Paper - PLANSPONSOR.com

Case 3:06-cv-00703-DRH-CJP Document 2 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 12 of 5249. Class certification is also appropriate under Rule 23(b) and each subpart in that:A. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1)(A), in the absence of certification, there is a riskof inconsistent adjudications with respect to individual class members;B. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), as set forth above, the Defendants have actedon grounds generally applicable to the Class as a whole; andC. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), as set forth above, common issues of law andfact predominate over any purely individual issues and thus a class action issuperior to any other method for adjudicating these claims.FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTSThe Plans50. As part of their compensation and benefits, IPC offers certain of its employees theopportunity to participate in the Plans. Both Plans are “defined contribution plan[s],” as definedin ERISA § 3(34), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(34), and contain or are part of “eligible individual accountplan[s]” under ERISA § 407(d)(3)(A), 29 U.S.C. §1107(d)(3)(A). They are tax-qualified plansof the type popularly known as a “401(k) plan.”51. IPC benefits by providing the Plans to eligible employees in that the opportunityto participate enhances IPC’s ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel, fosters employeeloyalty and goodwill, and entitles IPC to tax advantages under the Internal Revenue Code.52. The Plans are essentially identical but for minor technical differences not relevantto the facts and issues set forth in this Complaint.53. According to the Plans’ financial statements filed with the Department of Labor(which are virtually identical):General – The Plan is a defined contribution plan providing retirement benefits tothe salaried domestic employees and certain hourly domestic employees of12