them have settled the lawyers remaining in the case is my understanding it never objected to a class action settlement before if that is there are people still left me and not everybody's gone away no my clients i done that lara's found in ortiz it's found in most key which is a ninth circuit case in another case with very precise language is a payment cards the second principle of law is that an approval of a settlement class is subject to heightened scrutiny that's and and can once again the third point is that it's a duty it is the duty of the moving party under rule twenty three  four to establish its burden if the burden cannot be shifted to the objector and twenty three a four hundred twenty three b yes the fourth point is review of certification under rule twenty three a must be established without dependence to the settlement terms the settlement terms can be looked at generally under twenty three it can be looked at more specifically but under twenty three and denied the due process rights would receive the day in court i would prefer the court i have it just a painting the questions of the court i have the home run cases the  one at bat is the one that hit your point directly and this is actually a grand slam on third base leading off with cam that's the seminal decision of the united states supreme court rejecting a settlement class ification based on lack of adequate representation it also established the notion that structural protections such as subclassing unnecessary under certain circumstances to ensure that's another seminal united states supreme court decision case that applies a heightened scrutiny standard to settlement class certification it held that fairness of settlement cannot substitute for presence of rule twenty different way which is that is there any reason to anticipate anything other than the district court reciting the words it's supposed to recite in order to check off that box to look at the district court decision in fact talks about conflict i'm not sure that substantively the court has already answered the question for its purposes why should we just look to that that's what exactly what happens in a community bank which is a third circuit case it exactly happened like that the facts would be that it would find that the name class representatives which by the way in this case weren't named were not adequate representatives and beyond that class council did not vigorously pursue this case and did not really vigorously pursue them the question that would be asked by the court this three of them are the interests aligned number two are the interests of the class representatives and the class members in conflict the third question court would ask and have to answer under twenty three a review which was never carried out it was never carried out here and i'll explain the language from the opinion after i raise this last point the third question would be have the cop have the class representative in class counsel vigorously prosecuted the class members claims this is the individual class members not as a whole not the general bulk of work that was thrown at the this appellate court in the response of but what did they do for massachusetts class members what did they do for new hampshire class members what did they do for missouri class members in this particular case the court would find it would first of all have to identify who the class member representatives were that represented massachusetts new hampshire in missouri there's none named none have aligned interests it didn't identify who they were these representatives did not hold the same claims as the massachusetts class members the new hampshire class members of the missouri class members all the other repeal  states had their own class representatives they fought they got to recover here they did not so it's not just the fact however that they had an economic recovery they had people and zealously represented them and this in the stands many talking about the people from the was a twenty two states and so you're distinguishing back through from your clients in the three states plus the i guess potentially the non repeater states as well yes i'm focusing on the admitted repeal estates of massachusetts new hampshire and missouri they did not have a class representative named there is absolutely no law that allows that to occur well and in fact the rule explicitly says you have to have a class representative and all the case law that interprets it says you need to have a class representative absent class members to come to come forward and put someone in the case that it's clearly the duty of lead counsel and that's found in the wording of the law of the rule rather when it's found in every case the new york where lead counsel went out and contacted a number of class for a potential class wraps by solicitation and he was ethically charged and they said no it's your his duty to do that in this particular record that he notified mr that he was discharging him so number one he could have called up mr genetic and asked him do you have receipts i guess we've never said what this big process is that he used to that there are a millions of people who are part of this class everyone who bought a t v during expansive class period is a potential class rep this lawyers in the case how many law firms in this case do they have existing clients this other cases where people have run ads there's a lot of different ways that lead counsel should have done what what he had to do under the rule of law under his appointment the rule of law says he has a duty to represent these people he can't wait until after the fact and i meet with them in his class and then have satisfied the am camp ortiz or any of the of a ninth circuit cases time is limited so let me let me jump to what it seemed to be the big problem for me at least and i'm surprised that there's not more case law on it but i've looked in our circuits case law and don't see very much with regard to what i think is the core problem here which is there's some people who get money and some people who don't and the same attorneys purport to represent both groups the closest i've come in the case it's been a done a fight and we some of the papers i think is the m case from two thousand where in fact there are class members that don't get anything and our court did not block the settlement because of that why isn't this covered by the mego case i think well it's certainly not covered that that could be pretty please leave the adjectives out i mean we're trying to figure out if what at the end of the day you have a situation where some people get money and some people don't if that's a insurmountable obstacle  the united states ever that has this fact ever because the clear duty of class counsel is to represent the absent class members in this particular and i am adrift in again volumes of excerpts of record ok so can you there we can't hear what's going on appear so please refrain or go outside thank you this is lead counsel's final approval brief these are the words of lead counsel lead counsel was appointed to represent the interests of purchasers in the twenty two indirect purchaser state classes further lead counsel he has no duty to represent purchasers in any other state that goes against the rule twenty three a for it goes against the specific language and i can read the specific language of his appointment that he has to do represent all the class members and it goes against  radcliff every other case in the ninth circuit or anywhere else in the country this is not this is not gradation did he do we're not here we have a unique situation where club lead counsel said i have i don't have to do it and that is not right these people of the absent class members a dependent on lead counsel to represent their interests zealously zealously not turn around and say i don't have to to represent them it's also noteworthy that from the beginning lead counsel purported to represent these absent class members that he suddenly in the final approval brief washes his hands  your complaint was the first complaint on filed massachusetts filed by lead counsel before there was an embryo that c r two to a one to three for the next one is the first amended complaint included massachusetts e r two zero nine fo zero nine three second amended complaint one seven four eight eight five three ball the national class a national class meets a national class a national class doesn't mean forget about these three states forget about the rest  i'll include them in here because it looks good and then at the end they'll say all they have to do is pay attention to these twenty two states and forget about the rest absent class members in this case law are all over the place or to rely on the ethical rules and the old were black letter law in the cases interpret it that lead counsel zealously represents them they can't be an appearance of a conflict he has to hold them like a mother holding an infant protect their interests look out for the best that they can have in missouri what did he do from missouri although he claimed a national class we can go through the four of them in a complaint but it's more of the same it was included until the final approval brief make clear he didn't represent them all the way along he's not going to represent them now what happened along the way with missouri prior to the settlement and no economic recovery claims were never asserted that can be found at the hour seven twenty six to twenty  seven seven twenty seven the auto declarations at paragraph thirty nine and forty two point if never named notably on march two notably at the seven eighty eight on march sixth two thousand and twelve  evidence in the record that a missouri class representative was brought to his attention he didn't follow up with regard to new hampshire new hampshire was in league counsels preempt the complaint the r two to a one to three zero four it was also one two two four three the national complaint two two nine seven the four going complaint all the complaints again word vs seeking a national nationwide class which includes the admitted repeal or states want to include the admitted repeal of states you a letter i'm going to switch gears on you ok this is something i want and maybe somebody else is going to address with something i want to focus on but the district court explained the reason for the different treatment in the end as being the people that were going to receive any money had no hope of receiving any money because at least at that point in time they no longer had a viable claim why isn't that a justification for the plan of distribution that that is very hotly contested that issue was not briefed the just record said that it could not revive claims it's also a question about that that's something that will be raised when we go back to the district court the the beyond that well i'm not sure as the point of may go which is not on all fours but the court in may go winds up saying well there's a category that just not going to be able to collect and so it winds up saying ok to the deal even though some people walk away with nothing because the court apparently concluded they're not going to get anything and why isn't that the same true here because it's not conceded it's absolutely not conceded that they won't get anything in fact first place the defendants were placed on notice from word go from preempt yell complaints that were put on notice of massachusetts and new hampshire with regard to missouri they will put on john crabtree before miss estes i'm going to go in and go very quickly there's so much not feel like about this settlement i'm going to hit one thing hard there's a ninety degree problem that cannot be swept under the rug the claims that were released rationalized by statute of limitations doesn't work analytically it's incoherent and the reason is simple it is one thing to say that a whole group of people's claims are not barred because their claims are brought within x years but it is another thing to say in a wholesale basis that everyone's claim is barred because there were highly individualized issues that are implicated in a statute of limitations and not us issues relating to a cruel and tolling and missouri like basically every other state has these principles so for the court to say that everyone's claim is worth less is incoherent we can't do that now so it's the reason why we don't allow twenty three b three common law fraud claims since every person's death well that cuts way broad because even if you didn't have the conflict of interest type claims here within any class settlement you've got the possibility of some individual popping up and say my facts are sufficiently different that it should be covered and you can't have a class action if you take that too far what i'm saying is this is that you cannot force someone in a representative action to release their claims fo zero compensation and say they are bound when you do so based on statute of limitations there are hyper individualized issues especially when so explain to me how s serving with the entire to jet and judge you really that would be worth value to them and what would it be i actually i was talking only about damages really because missouri by construction of their consumer practices act that's why in l c day and i want to correct the record actually we do a lot of appeals and class actions i did do an objection and the i done won and that case i'm quite aware that there was relief for the missouri people because the court ruled that the claims were sufficient and in fact misty alioto was counsel my case i don't want to take any more time from she needs to go to but i would like to make one final point before i step away and that is that the lodestar cross check in this case was nothing but theater it was a spacek of a spacek of a small minority of cases and all reveal was even the records that came out was that you have blocked billing quarter hourly billing and haphazard records that's not enough to justify an upward departure from benchmark in a mega fun case thank your hono all and we have claimants from each of the three amid repeal or state's let me try to start by answering your honour's questions that you've had so far what would happen on remand first of all the district court should appoint a separate counsel to represent these omitted repeal are states secondly that counsel would file a new amended consolidated complaint that would include claims of each of these emitted repeal or states and those claims would relate back to the filing of the original complaint secondly you ask i'm sorry i see two minutes yes what should we counsel have done excellent question we are challenging not only the final order approving the step the settlement but also the twenty ten order approving the stipulation and if your honour's will read koby versus  us national services and reynolds vs beneficial national bank i think those two cases tell you what it is that both leak council and the district court should have done at this i get an answer before the time runs out is why i kept the district court's decision that the people in those three states can properly be excluded from receiving any money be justified based on the distinction the court found with regard to they're not going to get any money anyway it's too late for them the only reason they're not going to get any money and the only reason that their claims have no value whereas the other repeal are states claims do have value is that lead counsel committed malpractise and they can sue can't be included within this settlement i don't know what it is that that makes the lead counsel represent somebody he doesn't represent you're saying he doesn't represent them so he can't release their claims that argument i hear the argument that he's committed malpractise somehow and people would like to bring malpractise claims against him because but can't because a limitation period that argument i don't hear what i want to know is why is the plan distribution faulty when the court distinguishes between people that have claims that we live today and people that don't have plans that live today ok one minor distinction in what you said  they sought classification at the very end in conjunction with seeking a settlement but let me go back to what i think is your ultimate question why was the discourse wrong that these three states no longer had viable claims the reason they no the only reason the twenty ten stipulation was ever entered was to cover up late counsel's negligence in failing to properly plead claims on behalf of these three states in that stipulation behalf of that class in a consolidate amended complaint for new hampshire he failed to take the complaint that had been filed and sent into this in d l and included into the consolidated minute complaint for massachusetts he did attempt to plead claims but he failed twice to give the requisite thirty day notice which the special master specifically instructed him he had to do to your theory  amended complaint can be filed which will relate back to the original complaint now so then the original complaint here will be for massachusetts which was including the consolidated point for new hampshire which had a complaint which should have been which which was transferred into this in detail and made a part of this whole case and from missouri because missouri has always been a part of the nationwide class and so claims have always been asserted on behalf of missouri as well deference that's the general rule but there are some particular reasons why that rule applies to special force here six judges had a hand in this settlement began would judge leg sitting  special master handling many of the motions then judge conte also sending a special master certify the class for trial judge vaughn walker helped craft the settlement judge fern smith greed you have six judges involved in this that these judges heard all the objections they're making now and rejected all of them and they're asking you to find an abus discretion here now these approvals by special measure quinn and judge tiger were not rubber stamps special master quinn wrote a seventy seven page opinion didn't adequately represent the consumers from three to three repeal or states new hampshire mess shoes it's in missouri the fundamental problem is they had no representatives from those care that they may or may not have been able about and find somebody my problem now is that we've got a settlement teed up that purports to release that does release claims on behalf of people from those states without appearing to have any return to them and without appearing to have anybody at the table speaking for them the fact that mr alioto couldn't find somebody from missouri i accept that by now it's probably the case but then how is it that he release their claims since he doesn't have anybody from missouri that he seems to be looking after i mean a deal that says i'm giving away your claims over there and my people over here get money seems to have a piece missing like those people over there that would be troublesome if that's what happened a snot what happened this this case began as a nationwide class action for an injunction under the clayton at against these price  defendants on behalf of every indirect purchaser in the country all right now you can get that under the clayton act that covers all fifty states all right the consumers in those three states were he tried before judge logan had some water support him but apparently there's a conflict judge leg ruled against or right now the only thing left for ms jail loaded do in order to pursue those three state damage claims is to get representatives from those states number straley oh can't do that he's licensed in california he can't quit a massachusetts and hang out a sign and say sign up for this case he can't do that a few minutes ago said i did that i got plaintive sprong massachusetts well here's what special master quinn found on the out on page forty  refused to add a viable plaintiff to this case and this just didn't happen special master quinn says having reviewed the documents claiming to show that mr b plaintiff the special master concludes that mr elliott his version of facts is more credible so there's no and i said up in a class representative from massachusetts but i don't so there's no class representative from as there is no one from any of these three states so how does mr aveo purport to represent people from massachusetts and extinguishing and releasing their claims because he represented them as members of the nationwide class with the injunction all right and get it which nobody seems to be much concerned about today we're talking about money and the people i know that use it's are being told that your claims are being released and oh you know everest and you might have for money even though i didn't get any money and i didn't have any plaintiff as a class representative looking out after them that their claims were alive and died the only claim they had in the beginning was for the nationwide injunction they had no claims in the beginning for the damages under those state laws well mr elliott depended on people like this more like a bunch in your ear to get them they didn't get on ok mr elway or what quinn said was this is an extraordinary achievement he got twenty two out of twenty five all right he organized the whole thing most lawyers in these other states were cooperative once mr all those designated lead counsel they cooperate they give him that they either sue and then have a admitted in in massachusetts and just for myself i don't care about any of that you know my problem is at the end of the day he strikes a deal that affects the claims of people from those states without a class representative from those  tell me why he can't pursue damages for them and i have to ask the question what gives him the right to release their damage claims because clifton earlier you cited the mego case in may go the court said that the distribution does not have to be equal among all the claimants depends on the value of their claims and if you look towards the end of that discussion the court says were we to do certify the current class  is possible that no one will cover anything from make oh no that's exactly the situation here well mr the reason for some people not collecting and may go had to do with the adoption of the private securities litigation reform act right and here the reason being given is the statute of limitations objectors are busy saying look we got lots of ways to try to finesse that i don't know whether going to be successful or not but that they have a different point of view and so you start to ask yourself and let me understand the practicality of settlement i practiced law for a long time i know defendants want complete peace but you can't always get what you want and in this case who's at the table looking out for the people from massachusetts new hampshire and missouri nobody and it becomes easy to do a deal that gives nobody's the nobody the people nothing which seems to be what happened here now it may be correct that those people can't collect anything but why is it that they have to suffer that risk and we're supposed to make that decision number one that they're not suffering anything the case is gone you that the statue of limitations argument they're trying to rebut saying there's relation back there's tolling you can't do any of that and maybe we should ask defendants to bear that risk by saying don't get a release for those states but don't worry you got no problem because of the limitations period has run your honor if you write an opinion that says something like that very  well i think the work should be wary of weaponized objectors and allowing them to upset these settlements this is this is always a wait a minute what sacrosanct about a settlement where you and i strike a deal that makes him over there suffer we don't have the right to speak for him and and i don't want to kill settlements but people only have the power to speak for themselves and in this case i don't see anybody at the table speaking for the people from massachusetts and new hampshire and missouri i hear defendants wanting to play peace while they pay any more for those i doubt it will hold the plaintiffs class have to share more money to more places maybe so and if they're not willing to then why are we allowed to say that the people in i think hawaii is a repeater states so why should people from hawaii be able to say we get a little bit more because people from massachusetts like judge katzman was and probably was during the class period it ended in a way if someone is settlement had been allocated to consumers from those three states you'd have a different set of objectors up here the objectors from the other states say why you give them a moment money we've got all these judges finding their claims are worthless and you're giving them a piece of action for what nuisance value know the wide class then they go to negotiate defendants one global peace they won even though the claims of those people in those three states are worthless they still want a sign off that they won't get any n suits i should they get it if they're not if if they're not willing to pay any more why should they get what they want if in fact nobody appears to be looking out after the interests of those three states i don't because the local council in those states did not produce any class representatives that's what judge leggy said that's what you go to do and you could use theorize if they had somebody come in today they could try to make their complaint covering them rela back on not going to opine on whether that's possible but how is it we can adjudicate that argument well the proof or the putting that that's not going to happen is they didn't do it mr bunce in your claims to have a client who's objecting at any time he could have brought that client to mr allen said join up he didn't do it same thing with his more bring them in he would have been delighted to join them because that would increase the size of the settlement increased his attorneys fees it would have been wonderful the size of the settlement then you're telling me defendants are going to willing to pay more for those states which is kind of contradictory no i'm saying if they were worth anything early on they were  something before the statute of limitations ran if they had brought people to him before it ran he would have been delighted to add  it would of if those people had stayed in the case but they were some dropped out and by the time the fourth amended complaint was filed by the time a settlement they were of it what they would have told if they had stayed in the case over but it was too late that the key here is there's no plaintiff from those states because the objectors didn't produce them i mean they're talking about relation back in any everything there was no motion to amend the fourth amended complaint to add them i want to respond to the question came up a couple of times about what happens if you reverse and disapprove of this settlement right this settlement is over half a billion dollars cash no coupons no vouchers no she pray no discount money in the bank and the money is in the bank at this point all of the defendants have paid the money now the terms of the settlement agreement are if this settlement agreement is undone that money goes back to the defendant out of the bank it goes back to them might end up going to new hampshire and massachusetts or yell but that let's not forget about the consumers in the twenty two other states defendants has been in financial trouble samsung who contributed the largest chunk was something like four months late and putting it in this is a very volatile industry if this case goes to trial and there's a there's a judgment call a similar amount there's no assurance they're going to get that money so this are all good reasons why we should tell you the people of massachusetts and the other states too bad well i  practicality but i still i've got a problem with with three states being left out for reasons that may be legally valid with regard to limitations period defense but actually it's not twenty twenty five states you left out texas you left out florida you left out pennsylvania and them todo people don't get anything either that's right i'm a more willing to accept that and there doesn't seem to be a serious challenge that if you're from a a non repeal or state you're kind state their their claims are worthless so they get nothing at this point in time and at the point of his time in the settlement it's exactly the same thing with massachusetts new hampshire missouri law aims because you say so no but a special master quinn said so tiger said so and the losses so the law says that the statute of limitations has run on these  now there's no motion to amend to add any representatives from there what with they're doing is sort of conceding that but they're blaming this rally otoh they're saying in representation he should have done more to get representatives from those states he couldn't do any more he's not licensed in those states he has to depend on people like mr bunce signori i mean look at his address on his brief he's a ma he's not license in twenty five states i'm not either most lawyers are he depended on people like the lawyers in the twenty two states to come up with people and he succeeded was a tremendous huge achievement but at least three states it didn't help and these people didn't help at all so at this point in time messer chooses equals texas they're worthless and he did nothing wrong in signing a settlement agreement at gave up their worthless clutch can i ask again returning to the earlier part of your discussion and this may be repeating what you've said already but i'm just trying to get this in my own head ok did anyone in the settlement and distribution negotiations and this goes to your colloquy with my colleagues ha incentive to advocate for the position that the injunctive claims possessed by class members who are not eligible for monetary compensation because they are from states that you now allow for to su for monetary damages for monetary compensation because they are from states that do not allow sue for damages here actually have some value how does that speak to you again through your advocacy under rule twenty three from all the lawyers for the people in the various states and makes the buzz judgment he can it's it's it's messy i mean it's bound to be imperfect and some people are going to be unhappy but where you worked out people who are relatively healthy for you know sound so what is that what is the incentive for me what is the incentive what is the incentive with respect to the  his duty to be fair to everybody that actually incentive but when you see some claims are worthless what's he supposed to do you know tell these lawyers from these other states your people get less so it's it's inevitable that there's a class action with all kinds of people with different claims the what they worked out is they didn't break it up by states one of their objections but it's always going to be imperfect i mean this is a huge undertaking but i mean you know they want to nitpick every little thing and  to win case there was another case where their own ninth circuit case is say along with may go that these things are imperfect you take into account the value of the claims and if a claim is worthless or not worth as much the district court judge has the discretion to approve a plan of allocation that gives them less now keep in mind the judge tiger dealt with this whole issue we're talking about not in terms of whether the settlement should be approved he and quinn a lot of the settlement was triptych settlement it came up only with the plan of allocation and i would suggest that you treated the same way if you have a problem with this i hope you don't don't undo this settlement and have that all that money go back so the class never sees it again if you have a problem with the l allocation at least will keep the money in the bank defendants have no interest in the allocation among the class members had to but that legally barred me i did do that legally appalled how could you that this half a billion dollars was unfairly distributed all to the twenty two states and some of it should go to the three states that's an allocation question i hope you don't do that but i think that's  the way to handle this rather than undo this settlement which would would it would truly be a disaster out the created by the people who said oh well special master quinn judge tiger looked at this carefully and found that mr al him properly that he did his best to try to get representation for those three states and it just didn't work out in this case but he still represented those people because of the nationwide injunction that he was seeking so legally it was all fine i mean there accusation comes down to one thing mr alley otoh had a conflict which he did his interest were aligned with these three states he was he would love to have gotten represented to us from those three states he get more money all right and then he they say he was incompetent because he didn't go out and get thank you may please the court i realize i don't have a lot of time as counsel for defendants i'd really like to make just one critical point regardless of how this core resolves the question about the fairness of the distribution plan and we think it was they are but regardless of that there is no basis to disturb the settlement agreement they are two separate documents and as this court has recognized in the questions about fairness of the settlement agreement and questions about the fairness of the distribution plan are two separate inquiry if under the terms of the settlement agreements here are defendants paid a single lump sum of almost half a billion dollars which indistinguishably covers the nationwide class and all state classes the settlement agreement makes no judgment about the relative a value of any claims whether  erted or on asserted you don't care how the money is divided we don't care how the money is divided your complete piece your for your happy that's right and i would point this court to the third circuit's decision in re pet foods product liability litigation that six twenty nine f three d three thirty three at three forty six to three forty nine and three fifty eight it's a two thousand and ten decision there the third circuit approved the release that was contained in the settlement agreement and only remanded for a determination as to whether allocation of settlement funds to certain class members were fair reasonable an adequate there's nothing that precludes this court from doing the same thing here  if i may i'd like to address a couple of the questions that the court had if this court will permit me a little bit more time thank you with respect to the question of valueless claims  whether as a matter of overall fairness or whether as a matter of settlement agreements valueless claims do not need to be compensated in all instances there is no rule that requires that i would point this court to the of limitations as far as i'm aware so that would have run in november of two thousand and twelve so we're really talking ancient history now this notion of relation back to be your client presently to worry about those data released for damage claims for people from missouri so on the subject of global release says which are important to incentivize defendants to enter into a class settlements of this magnitude this circuit has found that a federal court may release not only those claims that are alleged in a complaint but also a claim based on the identical factual predicate and i'm quoting as that underlined the claims in the settled class action even though the claim was not presented and might not have even been presented well in the class action global releases are exceedingly common they incentivize class settlements that's what happened here well but they're possible doesn't say that it's appropriate the particular case and if you're willing to say they've got no viable claim there's nothing to worry about than maybe we should let your clients be the ones that decide there's nothing to worry about why should we adjudicate for the people in those states that you don't have  viable claim nobody brought it but we're going to pretend that it's been adjudicated if you're so confident you can tell your clients not to worry they don't have any viable claim so we can excite as those states from the release of course you're not going to do that and your clients are going to agree to that so why is it the people in massachusetts are the ones that take it in the shorts global released as not convert otherwise valuable claims into the otherwise value less claims into valuable one but the premise is that the claims  valueless and you're not willing to take the risk that that's not right and so why should anybody else be expected to take the risks that that's not right well i guess in this case it goes back to where i started which is that the settlement agreement the money that we paid doesn't make any distinction between the value of claims whether they're valueless whether they're not valueless we paid widen single lump correct but if the risk  that it is then your clients can solve the problem as well by deciding fine there's no risk so we'll take it but they won't do that and that's what we didn't do that you did we didn't do that in the end and if we have this mediation i suspect that question could be put to your clients only i wouldn't expect actually to put it if i were the mediator because it's absurd defendants are paying for a global release but that doesn't explain to me why we should accept the argument that there's no risk first off i think in many of these questions they keep going back to by the time of the settlement the claims had no value well let's look at why the claims the claims i women that they still work but if they had no value the only reason is because in two thousand and lead counsel entered into a stipulation which does not have his client's anything no client benefited from that stipulation the only person who benefited from that stipulation was a leak counsel because it enabled him to hide his malpractise and start the clock ticking on the one year for point from a practice that stipulation essentially the first part of the settlement because in the stipulation he agreed that he would no longer bring any claims any new claims for any new party any new plaintiff or any new legal claims so he gave up all of the claims in the omitted repeal or states at that time and in exchange for we got nothing absolutely nothing now very important at the time of the stipulation two thousand and ten the statute of limitations had not run on any of the states so he claims he can sit back and wait for others to do his job and bring him a plaintiff well even if that had happened the day the approval of the settlement reversed well you were never like that yet because the settlement itself in the at the end of the day gives up all of the claims both damages and injunctive relief of the this settlement to go away or are you focused as well on the plan about location the defendants are desperately trying to put on the table by itself what i really want is for this case to settle and for us to be able to participate equally in the five the defendants offered to tweak the settlement allocation and it was late counsel who refused and that is in g m s e r five fifty four at one thirty three lines ten to fourteen