relief we seek is dismissal a reversal and dismissal because i think there are legal deficiencies that simply cannot be cured on remained there's a critical time line here that i'd like to point out a couple of the the milestones in this case th court all of these claims were reminded back to the southern district of florida for individual adjudication but not to be processed as a class but for individual adjudication which dramatically changed the paradigm is the court might imagine  we urge class council to participate in that process they refused they categorically refused to participate when they found out that we had made progress in achieved an offer they filed motions with the court to prevent us from going forward with those all  to sell the case so there is no unjust enrichment that they're claiming were unjustly enriched how can we be unjustly and what risks as a part of this transfer from court we walked away from any claim in the common benefit of the m she did not abuse her discretion there's ample evidence in the record for her ruling she made specific findings that judge fallon's m t l order of sixty percent was persuasive and instruct she referred to the johnson factors and then she made these key findings st class counselor credited with bringing the chinese to the bargaining table to resolve product liability action in the u s and this was an outstanding result council confirmed this finding at the fairness hearing on the global settlement she proclaimed this is a historic occasion it's the st time that a chinese company has settled with u s consumers and an american court under the global settlement pay thousands of homeowners almost a quarter of a one billion dollars and tayshaun added that this element was certainly forged after years of litigation and months of negotiation with abel ab sirius that zealously represented their client would not have been obtained without the benefit of class counsel's years of work and class counsel exerted a great deal of time and labor that directly benefited the f i o s clients and this factor weighed heavily in favor of her few work further class counsel undertook a substantial risk of litigating this case on contingency basis and this is very important class counsel achievements in the global settlement increase the value of the florida settlement by twelve point eighty five million dollars the district court rejected the argument that we were already fully compensated for the court's benefit our lodestar for this portion of the case was an excess of seventy million dollars judge fallon award is twenty eight million dollars and he was aware that we would be seeking further fees with respect to this settlement when we appeared before the court on this point and as the court already pointed out there original settlement in florida it was about twenty seven million it increased to forty million as a result of the most favored nations clause and it's clear now looking back that there was no risk individual counsel or those claimants in entering into the floor because what the protection of the most favored nations laws if and when we settle our case for more money they would reap the benefits and as it turned out the global summit was a much better deal individual counsel profited from our efforts yet they want to pay and zero income and benefit fees even though their clients recoveries and their fees increased by forty six percent accounts  contentions here are similar to those of certain objectors in the diet drugs gates who did not want to can't come and benefit because they opted out of the global settlement before it was the opt out before the settlement was reached and they said they didn't use the remediation damages that settlement would never have come to fruition have we not fought for the pivotal reclusive effect order in the district court defendants would still be challenging the ambulance orders against the there  fees in all cases even those that are before other courts and here individual defendants the individual counsel excuse me benefited greatly from our services earlier in this case judge found it entered a seventeen percent pullback order there was no objection from any one judge cooksey order equates to approximately fourteen four percent there's other cases where the percentage of an assessment is higher so their argument that there's no common fund to pay these fees this wholly without merit as they said florida everglades determination of whether a fund exists is a combination of traditional and pragmatic concepts centering around the power of the court to control the alleged funds here the we did not abandon any plaintiffs much less any amerind class members we would have preferred to settle on behalf of all the plaintiffs in one global settlement but we were not given that option the appellant's filed formal objections to ar mediation to represent their client's interests and by the time we arrived at mediation the defendants had already you know marked funds for the florida summit our negotiations for a global summit were based on hard data that class was never to be certified and judge cook took it upon herself to state execution of that sentiment just she could satisfy herself that those class members were protected that the information they had regarding the settlement offer was adequate and so she stayed its execution she noted that the duty of the court to protect those class members exist regardless of whether their individual settlements or a class settlement and we continued to prosecute the florida still moment plaintiffs remediation damages while all of the settlement proceedings were unfolding and in the end we included appellants brooke plaintiffs claims as well as all of their non florida plain just planes in the florida supplement it did not object to that they did not object or feel they have failed to show an abuse of discretion by the district court they're unhappy about the result but the district court followed proper procedures in determining the forty five percent was a fair share of the fees earned and the reason she worded less than the sixty percent the judge found had ordered was of fact was clearly erroneous and we would suggest to the court that if you do find jurisdiction to hear the subpoena all judge cooks order should be affirmed and there should be an order that the common benefit  access to them and we certainly have no authority to take that money for ourselves when they negotiated the class deal to their exclusion they savard their relationship they terminated their relationship and the status quo changed dramatically for these individuals because we were to notice letters that were reviewed by just cook that said your options are accept this all for here's what your recovery would look like or stay in the legislation and you continue to be a part of the class well when they obtain the class sell it to the exclusion of these individuals we had to turn around and  buys them wait a minute you now have to either accept this offer or here to be alone with our class representation that is that the events severed their represent they now want to be paid and this is the irony which i have to them and they are they're asking the court to award their more fees and just couldn't do it then just cook then just balance or order them for the two hundred million dollars deal they put together it's it's it's it's in  face they handle clear authority to claim they have been paid the firms that i represent have been paid and we doesn't fit here i submit to the court this is taking the common benefit doctrine adult greater than fourteen percent against a total recovery here so they literally got more relative to the whole take for the recovery from just kooker claims they didn't sell then they get from just fellow claims they s