findings by the district court and here there was no record made before with respect to any kind of specific evidence that lodestar was insufficient or needed to be about the prior use and furthermore the district court made no detailed findings of fact that would support a multiplier and that's really our main issue here is without those detail findings of fact which this supreme court and producer called to be called essential you just can't use  issue is no matter what multiplier is used it has to be supported by these findings of fact and the reason for that it makes sense you know this this court actually pioneered the lodestar method of calculation strange emigrants rajon under your argument  doesn't have the same rigorous findings and i thought about that but i think this records are required to make some type of detail findings to support any kind of multiplier on so i think the problem is with the process and what that process  and that's our position and i think caffarelli adds another layer on to that i'm not even sure i could use a percentage of recovery for a settlement and involving vouchers or coupons on mice it's based on actual boucher's the actual value of the significant outlay of expenses by plight of counsel there were disputed at and on his motions to dismiss class certification summary judgment the case was actually then tried for two weeks and then it was settled and in that case the court blasted multiplier of one point two eight so so i think you can see what we did issue with the amount of the multiplier of course that's i think an issue on remained for the district court but in that case that's a gunpoint to a multiplier in our case was to say that it put the class on notice that they had a potential breach of contract in the i p l can't we should this is more to do with anything with the fact that none of that reasoning appears in the writing to be the basis for the judge's district probably well it's now been almost or more than six years on this case and again i think for an attorney to take on a case that's honest on a contingency way and there facing significant roadblocks to recovery  potential claim and so that issue was raised in a motion to dismiss the court did not the court denied it without prejudice and said that they could bring it up again later once discovery was concluded so the point i guess is was that extraordinary well it he's obligated to say and the reason we think this water should be vacated is x and what i said i'm not asking for we're we're rights than i had going into this in other words i'm not seeking if it goes bad on a percentage fact that we had urged the percentage of recovery method which they claim the court rejected and when they are working with the court rejected i think when you look at what the courts analysis was for not using the percentage of recovery method it was because it was her we'd appropriate i agree i agree with that but i still think that the percentage of recovering else is the appropriate one i think the case law says certainly in the area of a cash option the you look at the benefits   that i shouldn't be limited because class members choose not to submit a claim we did work to make a settlement available to a class we got notice out of that class we had over i think five thousand people except submit claims as a result but the what was made available to them was in excess of two point eight million in cash and twenty five million vouchers and i think under anyone else's percentage recovery we were well with was a harmless error to me this is not a sort of harmless error argument you know when we think of commissary think of where there is an end result that could be support by an alternative crown in the record that's not the case here they're saying there's an end result but it can be supported if you find that the district court erred also on this other basis in picking lodestar over percentage of recovery that's an area that needed to be raised by a cross appeal with this court to preserve it so if we go back like the one hundred that positions one hundred million dollar settlement the fee amount does not reflect the true market value of attorneys and that area there is a great outlay of expenses i class counsel and we had a case here now