i'm of course have an answer any questions but in the absence of those i would like to maybe step back a little bit and talk a little bit about the job that the this report was meant to do and when  analyzing this settlement and what it did worse is what it should have done what you've heard now from the the settling parties at this point is that this is a great settlement because the the injuries were not as severe as other injuries a but might be that there were plenty of people who purchased this product this terrorist movement product who either liked it or were injured by it are you arguing essentially that this never should have been certified as a class that's my first question and the second question that i i'm just confused by as i don't know why if your client was this on happy with settlement she didn't just opt out is fifty two people did judge that would let me try to answer the first question first which is do we think it should have been certified as a class i'm not arguing that it could never be certified as a supplement clash i think there would be substantial issues with certifying a class like this to go forward through trial supreme court has said we're not supposed to draw that sharp distinction between ordinary class certification settlement classes that i am cam ortiz you know that the courts was fairly clear that was one of the issues actually in most cases that's right at the the idea is when it's a settlement class you give much more scrutiny to the fairness of it rather than the manageability it might be a way to put for settlement if you think that there are typically problems well i think there are well and i do mainly because the named point it's here suffered pretty severe injuries relative to what we're hearing about now is the is the  average they said of course the structure of the settlement reflects that there the option a option b options avenues correct but the well let's talk about option eight which is the ten dollar  reimbursement for your purchase which you can get a one time ten dollars reimbursement for it for it without even a receipt but the complaint the operative complaint talks about a great deal that this product was alleged to contain a formaldehyde like such interest such as that released formaldehyde while at the same time the package and the marketing was there's no formaldehyde at this and so you could have people who purchased this dozen times they like listen to the the the suddenly part of some people like that in one affected adversely with injuries perhaps they like the product purchased it once a month for a year when i really got worried about those people if they purchased it had no problem with it and went back and purchased another eleven times i mean i'm confused because i think those people are the people who may not have been aware that they were being exposed to formaldehyde his complaint i mean no one as far as i can tell you know that it's carcinogenic or something this case is about people who suffered you know either hair burning off or worse problems as apparently some people did from the product your client said nothing at the fairness hearing about any particular injury she'd had right there was a bit of confusion about what indra she had whether they were economic or otherwise which didn't quite fit in with  problem actually that there's there's no record at all and that well you know the the what i would say about that is we were not instructed to to win the settlement notice in the provisions for filing an objection it didn't say anything about listing out your injuries that our client filled out a declaration that listed all of the things that she was supposed to list said that she is a member of class product i don't believe it i agree that it's not on the record i think her her injuries were in fact think that you think this is not a big enough settlement that ten million dollars isn't going to cover the appropriate number of claims and part of your brief makes me think that you think that the ten million dollars is going to be ample and that actually unilever's going to wind up once things move from the reimbursement side to the injury side and then the injury fund maybe only gets used to the tune of six million dollars the other four will go back to you know a lever so what is it is it too small or too big it's both actually ok the reason i say that well let me explain it because it is it is a little bit subtle  inexplicably low i suppose i would say for it for some people who surely but maybe not for your client maybe she's in the eight hundred dollar range i mean we don't know but there are some people parent who suffered something but not a huge amount that's right and those people should have a chance to get that as well and they did what they don't are this settlement structure there's the administrator then there's the claim settlement person former magistrate judge you know one for the twenty five thousand dollars people and i understand there's some people might think that fifty thousand dollars worth of damage but that's what settlement look like actually they're a compromise that's true and to to go back to a comment you made before a judge would that this case is about personal injury it really didn't start out that way to be all about personal injury it's about the sale of this product that was mislabeled didn't identify to greedy and properly and also happened to cause allegedly caused these injuries so there's more than just a personal injury component and and in fact  here at this settlement evaluation stage and you're trying to put those into the box at some of our cases have fit into namely something where there's not a sufficient inquired by the district judge i think the district should look at it pretty carefully we don't have the problem with the attorneys fees coming out of the settlement we don't have a lot of things that have been issues before that's true that the district court made it a real effort i think to address the eubank versus extract related it was about halfway through that maybe two thirds the way through the claims submission period so he had some data to look at directly and that's but that is just really only happy question and our issue with this was not so much there's this amount of money here to be claimed so much as how are we going to get fairly from one to one side or the other of this meaning it's the process that people would use  world what would this look like because people who win west say people tell me exactly how you think this settlement should have been structured and then tell me how that differs from how it was structured ok let me if i could answer you'd give me you would like top three things that you think are wrong with this settlement structure that you would have thought in the end you're actually saying they just report abuse just discretion in not insisting on these things whatever they may be they what are your all i with we would want to i think we would would say that the claims for reimbursement for purchase price should be there should be a larger there should be a way to if you have receipts for twelve purchases and you can say now that i know that this formaldehyde issue i don't want to you know i feel like i was ripped off i want to i want to make a claim for twelve twelve times my purchase price defense and supply what they call factual information they assert that they can't assert legal defenses or something to that effect that the settlement precludes that i couldn't find that anywhere i've i've yet to see it an attorney mention fact without tying it in some way argumentatively or or to a law why would the defendant just spew facts at the at the claimant has the opportunity to come back with other information this is just a contingent claim they haven't been says been settled for real money this is what they have for the most part in changing planes and that's not really the same thing as settling the claim what you've done is sort of kick off the claims structure a way for judge would you ask about why why not opt out because if you've got a fifty dollar hundred dollar ten dollar claim and you opt out you lose the benefits of the economies of scale from a class action i don't understand that yeah value to the class with a ten point two five million dollar settlement that was approved by judge because stero after examining the record in detail is fair adequate in reasonable and there is nothing the record that the objector can point to that shows an abuse of discretion over here if three initial observations one many factual assertions that are made by the objector in the brief and even in oral argument are just not correct they don't accurately reflect the settlement agreement and you know accurately reflect the record will deal with momentarily to second observation this subject or is actually holding up the providing of the real value to thousands of individuals including number of people who are injured and stands between those individuals getting real value in real dollars for their injury as a result of having been part of the settlement class here in this case third this objector has a dubious standing one as the court asked as chief judge would ask even your world what would be different over here the fact of the matter is there really hasn't been an articulated injury over here there is nothing that would benefit definition of the class and second and the last point here is with regard to the challenge to attorneys fees the attorneys fees are paid separate from the class it will not diminish the value of the class whatsoever we file what's the status of that  actually the settlement agreement provided that that we would resolve attorney's fees based upon the work performed and that is what judge chrystia looked at just to steal a look at what the work was that was performed in this matter he also looked at how claims have been made because that the period of time had expired by that point and actually walked our lodestar in the car lodestar significantly so we have actually as as attorneys in this case made substantially less than we would have made if we attorneys fees just passed there's been no appeal that was made either by this objector or by anyone but importantly also by not having made a claim and we serve discovery in this matter and we can supplement the record if the court desires by not having made a claim in this case there is no just to suppose standing over here to object to the fee when the fee is not part of the settlement classed the fees independently represented and there's no claim made that she's not part of the class and doesn't have standing to object talk about the record the record in this case was very precise and very very detailed judge his studio made and all of this is on the record to talk painstaking steps to make sure that this was analyzed in importance with seventh circuit president and as you know the opinion in pella had just come down shortly before this this final approval hearing it was fresh in everyone's minds what the attorneys were arguing for the settlement made clear reference to pella and the judge a very clearly reference pella in his opinion and after evaluating all of the factors under is b and looking at specifically through the lens of  very able mediator judge andersen formerly of the northern district of illinois this case it survived two motions to dismiss a motion to dismiss in the northern just riffle annoy and a motion to dismiss in kentucky the judge knew this case intimately the judge said that evaluating all of the factors that faced excuse me looming looming in long arduous litigation you understood there was a quite zation issue over here but he said it was a hurdle he said that perhaps we could achieve causation but it was going to reserve judgment to the final analysis and so that there were issues here with regard to liability and with regard to damages in the long run the objector in answering your question  said very clearly he's not challenging certification over here this case could have been certified that's not an issue and that's nothing that they raise over here this was a balancing effort that was done there are only two objectors one object or has dropped out the judge receive and you believe that your damages were fifty thousand dollars or above you had the option to opt out it was very very clear and they had that opportunity which regard to that they are you in the brief about valuations before the court  provide information this is not a claims process that involves an adversarial process they have waived their defenses the only thing that they can provide magistrate judge nolan with is information that they have in the ordinary course of business they have to show it to us first they have to show it to the settlement administrator and i'm very much involved in this case and i can rip were present to the court that this process has been very very helpful because there are many people who are making claims that do not have information in their possession and they are getting that information by going to euna lee ever which has evidence of the fact that they called up to complain they have pictures that were submitted by these women individuals who have lost hair who had bird scouts they're getting that information and when they say and what they can do is they can appeal and ask not appeal but they can request that the special master give them an award for injury for up to twenty five thousand and one last final point there are two components to this to this settlement he was mis represented by by by my adversary over here there is a reimbursement compounded and then there is an injury component the reimbursement component provides for ten dollars for a thirteen dollars product eighty percent of the value if you if you represent you not to have a receipt you represent that you bought the product it's just an affidavit basically basically yes you get ten dollars back and that's for the two hundred fifty thousand dollars fine if there is money left over in that fund and there is that money then goes into the injury fund three components to the injury fund if you have you say that your injure you do not have receipts you get forty dollars based upon the fact that you may have gotten a hair cut you may have needed to buy some some sort of medical treatment if you have receipts and even if you don't have receipts but you can show some affidavit and some proof you can get up to eight hundred dollars and if you have more serious injuries and you can follow the guidelines which are specifically of corporate it into the settlement and provided to magistrate judge no and then they get up to twenty five thousand dollars it's not an adversarial procedure this is what's done in many settlements across the country went there are people who are injured and when the good morning your honor system in this case the district court applied every word of the guidance that this court provided in hella and other class actions as mr staffer's team has already explained in more detail court below first determined there were no conflicts looked at the risks and benefits to the class from the settlement and concluded that it was fair or reasonable and adequate what is important i think for this case is to know what this case is not as well as what it is this is a case that results in relief not in the form of coupons but in cash it is a case where the settlement was hard fought and the go she added with the assistance  mediator not read there was any collusion it is a case where the court diagnosed a straightforward path to relief for those who are present at the option c claims for personal injury it is not a case that involved complicated forms these forms are two pages long and the individual claimants are allowed to submit anything they wish to the magistrate judge former magistrate judge they can submit videos declarations affidavits from their family members the affidavits from beauticians all of this is available and there is no provision for the parties or their counsel to be present when the magistrate judge reviews this information so the special master is looking at the evidence that is submitted to her and has only factual information from unilever which has taken two forms mr safir scene has already explained one of those forms and that is the factual information that the beauticians at unilever received when someone had a problem with hair breakage and asked what should i do about this frequently the only photos were in unilever's hands but the second piece of factual information is an them from the class definition is also before the magistrate judge and appropriately so i would like to focus for just a moment on the the risks that the district court looked at in approving the settlement for a class the risks were substantial but common scientific issues that the plaintiffs were urging were a problem for the class because as explained in our brief the plaintiffs got the science wrong given the testing that was done on this product and the expert report that said a ph at this alkaline level is perfectly safe if applied as directed the plaintiffs are going to face an uphill battle on the scientific issues if this case proceed and although the objector claims now from the complaint that there was formaldehyde in this product the evidence produced in discovery was that there was no formaldehyde added to this product that the only formaldehyde release certain which is chemically different is a preservative in the conditioning step that is in most conditioners across the country today so again what this case is not it is not a case where someone was exposed to a carcinogen or a toxic substance it was a case in which people saw reimbursement for the product and some happened station for the haircuts if they applied the product contrary to instructions and that is largely what happened to that is the complaint mention formaldehyde at the amended complaint your honor it in this case the the most common injuries resulted from a disregard of the instructions on the box which said this product should not be applied to previously highlighted hair and given how many women in america had highlighted their hair there was hair great region proves that resulted and in many cases as a class counsel pointed out  final approval hearing a haircut was the appropriate remedy but not to minimize the injuries that some did suffer if again contrary to instruction they must sized it into their scalp there is a remedy for personal injury up to twenty five thousand dollars to words on that twenty five thousand dollars your honor it was heavily negotiated but it was also heavily substantiated because after the objector raised that issue at the final approval hearing the very last exhibit at mid at the final approval hearing was a chart of representative examples of prior awards and judgments for nonpermanent here damage none of them exceeded twenty five thousand dollars and the court looked at that before issuing the final approval order but also just a note something that harkens back to some statements judge posner has made in the past he often describes the defendant  indifferent economically to how a settlement plays out but here you know weaver has consistently taken a position that it has an investment in its brand and in the goodwill of its consumers it's not a company like radio shack that was facing bankruptcy it's a vibrant and ongoing commercial enterprise it unilever was very interested and focused on making sure that someone who relied on its brand was getting a fair adequate and reasonable response to an ad for six periods that they had with this product and therefore this settlement fund is in many respects more generous than would have resulted from simply adding up the categories of relief today your honor the claim rate is between two point three and two point five percent which is five and six times what we have seen in other cases that have before th rates are always quite low except that i mean it did seem that the note that the notice procedure reached a great number of people it did your honor and in this case their claim submissions reflect that we've already talked about the who had contacted unilever about this product even to praise it there were emails of thirty five hundred there were notices to the attorneys general there were ads and magazines they essentially used to the settlement administrator use the same channels that unilever had used to promote the product in the first place before the recall because the court properly assessed the risks and the benefits and properly rejected thank let me start with the defense's latest last last point that there were there was a relatively high claims rate relative to other cases that you see in this case  the problem with that with using that number for and analysis or information is that this is a case as we know where you can make a claim without a receipt you can make and just verify that you that you purchased the product and again money for the other for some of the injury at that component you have to provide more information of course but you can make a basic claim with just an affidavit there are websites that tell people and on the internet to aggregate these settlements up and tell them you can get money in this all you have to do is fill this out say you purchased it they're not going to check and the more in that sense the more notice you have the more internet notice the more notice you have of that the more likely it is you're going to get a substantial number of just simply fraudulent claims do i have any information that any of these claims is fraudulent when somebody signs up for the ten dollars thing goes up the claim form and sends it in even though they didn't purchase it no i don't but i description of the settlement the settlement does not say anywhere section four c or anywhere else that the defendant is waiving its defenses it says that it may provide information of a factual nature to them  the arbitrator that that is different from saying that it's waived all of its defenses and of course there is of course the release issue that some people plaintiffs plaintiffs allege in their complaint that these releases were sure and so i don't see any if if the defendant can't provide factual information to the arbitrator how does that work they simply put a very few facts without any argument or reference to a law that says well go back and say oh well this only applies to people who purchased in the united states so you're out with without any explanation she's supposed to divine that that's the argument and i think there's just a lot of how practical how is that going to work issues with with respect to submitting facts in opposition to a claim the standing issue i just want to  said that ms martin had an appeal the attorney's fees order and that's true there's no reason to when you're challenging the settlement itself the attorney's fees order would fall as the settlement falls so it would be deemed  the with regard to standing saying well she didn't file a claim and so that's not that does not deprive you of standing when you're challenging the settling cases have found this case and once served it that says if you have challenge if you're you're challenging the fee only and you haven't found the claim and therefore you if if the fee is lowered you won't get any more money back because you is the settlement where you have it i'm sorry you have a claim so you don't stand to make any more but if you're challenging the entire settlement and the settlement goes away that's not an issue so so there is no standing issue it's absolutely frivolous and we've tried to explain this time and again and yet they keep repeating that and it's pretty frustrating actually because it's pretty