by the district judge with about two point four million plus three hundred thousand and costs and the objectors who objected to the plaintiff's lawyers attorney's fees wound up with about one hundred fifty point two million approximately in feet so the price it's hard for me to keep straight there was one there was the management group there were cracked by a group don't have to calculate interest rate now that's not on this now what about the lawyers to get to to their feet and get a cut from six point seven million to two point four how much did they get before the first appeal they got the approximate hundred fifty point four million and about one point six million you know about one point three five about one point three million under the district court's findings the big benefit the third place the court didn't make any findings on that at all the court the court decided that it did i thought it said the stress of the stock went up part of it was due to the market but part of that was because they shut down the ninety six deal right and the point of the first appeal was there was no way to determine what part of that was a benefit conferred by biplanes counsel and what part of it was just due to market appreciation so that it was impossible to calculate a dollar figure for the benefits and that's why on the first appeal at our urging this court said that you only awarded lodestar theme and not a percentage free and so either so are we just deciding now whether the district court awarded lodestar fees for things that were passed the ninety six successful and was not allowed to wander the subsidiary argument is that if the court were allowed to go and look at the nine hundred ninety seven and the word only at the top of page one hundred twenty five you're using math to support your theory that planned so it was a warning fees for work cleaning up after a lawsuit that hurt the class and yet the court says it says generally it appears that the class was benefited but but our urging the court never said what those benefits were just very vaguely said ladies counsel argue one thing price counsel argue something else it isn't really important there are benefits therefore unless we know what the benefits were we can't say whether the court abused his discretion and we can't say whether it made a factual error in finding those benefits because again i don't know what the benefits were i might be making a factual argument but since it didn't identify benefits i can't say that i made a factual error it's illegal affirmed that finding because it was directly quest appealed to it when we went back the district court found the other way and found that there were benefits after one thousand and six but they did never i don't never identified them and so i can't argue whether it was right or wrong if it's not even allowed to make that i think it's not allowed to make that the court was allowed to make and i can argue that's right or wrong because i still don't know what those benefits for and that's that's argument the second argument with respect to the second appeal perhaps i should reserve my time to respond on the other appeal million at the end of it all and the have more years who opposed the attorney's fees got one point three five million at the end of it all if you including fees and costs all in those numbers are pretty close to right rough is what i'm was clearly erroneous when we said we're not convinced that it is clearly erroneous and then we said award plaintiffs counsel fees on the computer i'm a little star methodology for work undertaken in opposition to the ninety six point and wondering is why we shouldn't infer that infer that that's what the court man not only from the word only in the cost sentenced but also from the fact that what we were reviewing was tremendous economic benefits that we provided to the class you asked earlier whether there was any quantification of benefits it's not entirely true to say that there wa ninety six plan which was successfully defeat it contemplating a thirteen dollar a share purchase price that would have worked out to about seventy million dollars under the settlement there was a thirty three dollars  seat thirteen dollars a share in that amount that's how much seventy seventy seventy million under the settlement the company sold thirty three dollars a share one hundred eighty eight million dollars with judge wilkins said once well that's thirty three dollars that's pretty close to what the expert testimony i accept with respect of what would happen to the ninety seven plan thirty dollars and so i'm i'm not going to find that that's the three dollar differential is important but i think i think she didn't just say i am close enough for government work i think what she said was you can't really struggled is a benefit  debate of whether they got enough money are taking trying to welcome to task for not recognizing this benefit there was a line in there there's a line in that portion of the opinion and it says oh and by the way  also point out these other benefits of the settlement which judge will can on this go round so we're benefits the ninth circuit didn't say in winter one we don't believe that i shooting down the ninety six plane was really valuable to the class the lawyers who did it weren't pedal to get paid for it the appeal decision said so but it said use the lodestar you're overpaying for it beyond that the district judge really didn't see benefit there's a lot of work involved it looks to me like a lot of the work was basically if the settlement was done doing a collusive class action in order to preclude for the rejection to just get the settlement wrapped up and the numbers in the settlement were the inevitable consequence of the successful at destruction of the didn't matter here's why it didn't matter your honor when when when judge wilkins issued her first the award for class counsel she gave them the six percent the percentage of the benefit of the common fund it didn't say all in all taking everything into account i find in my discretion a class councils and title that six per cent of the common fund about six point eight million dollars it went up on appeal and  in winter one of the panel said is we don't want choice wilkinson who award fees to class council based on a percentage of the benefit because of this problem because of the problem that we can't quantify the portion of that not called upon to think about or to the side or to say anything about these other benefits nor i think this is unfair she made a finding and we said it wasn't clear we were running so it's kind of like finding in a multi defend honor and there are two reasons i stated it's not what you found because it wasn't what i'm talking about now that there's this trio of benefits to the class from the settlement apart from the three dollars  well wait a minute there were these other benefits he didn't take into account he didn't focus on in the opinion in the panels of opinion and women sure won the ninth circuit refer to that argument they never disposed of it when they said we don't find the church welcome was clearly erroneous and finding that the settlement was not clearly better than the ninety seven point what they were saying and this was clear from the text in winter one what they were saying is we don't find  twenty five percent and here are the arguments they're making they're saying that judge wilkins determination and i understand her determination flies this thirty three dollars versus thirty thirty dollars controversy and what th by the purchaser of the words class tefl made the argument across appeal that the district court simply didn't address this looks to me like they didn't just not aggressive they didn't buy if there were other benefits they rejected but what they say when they have it's not going to be around a judge wilkins ruling is this thirty dollars versus thirty three dollars controversy i see nothing and went in for one in which the court of appeals says by the way we've looked at the record on these other benefits and the fin to the ninety six plan don't award them compensation for opposing the ninety seven plan that's the mandate a judge will come now what you're looking recognised having lived with this case throughout its entire history is that well there's page nine this is for february over five order she's responding to when she came she summarized the price council's argument on the mandate and what  you any money for that she told us you got nothing to she said why i don't we need i can't read the mandate that's preventing me from looking at the record looking at the submissions and deciding now planned for and what she says is we were not addressing the legal work that preceded that means before the presentation of the ninety seven plan but it looks as though we were compensation of class council for work up to that point and they didn't tell me to refuse categorically to consider benefits and therefore compensation class counsel for work after the defeat of the ninety seven plan and what fire after the prior to return that was about sixteen million dollars that has to do with they invest course the fire shouldering the transaction the sale costs about three million dollars that have to do with the burden of attorneys fees being borne by the partnership rather than just the limited partners this is close to twenty million dollars in benefits and what threats welcome to saying she doesn't do the math but it's in the record she says these are benefits i'm going to compensate class council for th construction of the mandate came from mr bill and that's a different question and i would also point the court to i believe the judge thomas referred to footnote eight where it found that the fee was unreasonable because it was seventy five wouldn't even matter and i thought here what you appeal and if you don't appeal something it stands and that's the end of it and you can save some issues i agree i agree with that that's our next argument that whether s brought that out very effectively i think it must be unusual for the court to ask for letter briefs and get back letter briefs from both sides and they will say almost exactly the same thing both sides that there is standing to  point of a class action but that being the case there can't be a due process issue there's no problem of not giving notice to the class individual the class members because we have a class representative who's supposed to represent them in this case there certainly was vigorous consequences seventy one of that was you have to pay two hundred dollars and no more than two hundred dollars but as the district court found the first time around the second time around there was never a representation with regard to common fund fees for for the class as a whole later on fact is we did only one thing opposed in the councils fees and we were very successful that we got to have back from seven million five million if i could ask for thirteen million and we got it down to two million and if you go through you may find you will find arguments that we made are not successful because we made multiple arguments trying to vigorously represent the class and to think of whatever benefit we could and we were not going to act on good faith we thought were meritorious arguments even though there was a chance they might lose because we wanted to give the best possible representation to class and that's what we did and that's what this court said in the petroleum products case back and say well one argument one one argument lost and therefore we can the fees here or cut the fees there the fact is that overall they did we did one thing you opposed the fees and we did it successfully we got an multiplying lodestar for doing so and there was no abuse of discretion