good afternoon robert chlor for the object poor arrangement considering the dependent lumber liquidators is cash strapped but they didn't just arrange to take the most cash to take the most cash before the class gets anything through a quick paper meanwhile the primary class relief is which is tied to this to a company that class council have described as continual risk pretty clear in bankruptcy eighty five percent of the i agree with you on it but i also agree that i would also advocate that it falls under the rule twenty three and a adequacy of representation not just and i'm not just speaking as to the quick but the entirety of the agreement quasi representation of counsel and our argument is not only was there inadequate representation but at the very least the district court was required to engage your argument that i'm making here now w well it would seem like it would have to wait until the redemption unless you had some alternative provision of repayment so i think they're intertwined it's hard to separate the two issues i'm not sure if that answers your question but question you're asking but so class council have tried to marginalize this argument is simply attacking the quick a provision that's not what we're saying i think explained it's a broader argument than that  no court has authorized the specific type of arrangement we hear the bells are versus the sol opinion is really narrow it doesn't have a disproportionate ratio of cash that class in that case  received considerably more cash than the attorneys and also there are no there's no doubt surely so it wasn't at all the similar context and any of that it's a paragraph addressing the quick and finally the idea that making some cash available negates kappas contrary to both the language of the statute which contemplates nick settlements and the th circuit easy save your opinion where the co have this really interesting because there is no meeting chase in the circuit and in fact to weed in case is reached opposite worth before you can set attorney's fees under half of seven circuits that's not entirely true union re southwest airlines they talked about the fact that there are multiple sections in statute the st section says exactly with the th circuit says which is and what the judge did in this case in violation of law which is when you pay class says ever since two thousand and five when congress said coupons are going to be treated differently in class actions class council have come up with a series of other names to call coupons so that they come outside of the statute it's good lawyer with not particularly useful for this court traditionally was something that you got from travel which in the united states has a different definition in england but of croucher was something you got from travel agent that you gave to a hotel and the hotel used it to pay for the room so electronic thing that the class member receives allow them to buy anything they want from a huge selection of things that would be compact disc chase in wal mart liquidators then you look around what you're going to see for purchase is flooring it's not like walking into a wal mart or target and it's not like shopping online with they'd let you why more flooring so that you can sort of replace some of the flooring class council makes it seem as though you can take this voucher and go in and replace your floor could have a case like this one where the thing that the class member receives is a trained sickly value and would be as good as getting cash but the quest numbers it clearly voted here that that's not true in this case only fifteen out of every one hundred class members much to the surprise west council ah have a  mail it somewhere else you don't have to keep it yourself but the whole point about a coupon and what congress was trying to prevent a court some warriors from doing because the district court is a do sh giving somebody a coupon or a valve sure that then puts them back in the store the defendant who injured them is what congress intended this law to prevent it is true and i believe from way over time that it is true what the defendant isn't business to do which is to sell flooring there is the last in my mind it is one last thought which is someone this prevents what would be a useful tool with regard to circuit routers by not allowing them to be activated like tha think you may place a court steven toll for the plaintiffs and the class runners over my career i know we have legal principles at stake but most every case is fact driven and that really applies here  components of this some of which i'll get into a little bit in a minute they make this organ about this you know viability of lack of viability of lumber liquidators and they cite things that i mean it's in their reply brief they go into recent filings and so on i don't want to go outside the record but because i could kind of destroy everything and show how valuable it is and there's no threat of bankruptcy at all but they don't cite any orders report many a public filing saying this company support for the basic argument they're making and you know you have to consider to what judge drunk triangle is involved with here he was involved in basically two empty else there were over one hundred cases far in all my years i have forget the one other point that is so critical to this on the st this joke i sure judge brinkema heard about her in the last case they ignore this the object of their brief judge trying a new this was a very complicated proceeding we had failed mediation efforts early on he appointed judge brinkema as the mediator we sat down with the fence counsel the general counsel one bilik were daters and ironed out the settlement agreement which provided great value in cash which the company really didn't and we insisted on more they only got five million and we said we're not to take five million she was able to get them to sell treasury stock more got coupons she thought this was a great sun woman she was involved in every step of the way they make arguments that plaintiff's counsel somehow took advantage of the class and things like that we've got this to federal judge of but one intimately involved in every aspect of settlement we did do this outside on our own so i just want to make sure the court it's i don't think so you're on i really think what's important st is of course legislative history what was the statute put in place and not for a case like this and you read the senate reports they're talking about when pla lawyers try to just jump up the value of a subtle bit which had basically no cash with the minimum scales and say look here's three dollars coupons i'll give credits they can and i'll give it to the class and there were off on a purchase of a new baby crib where you know you've got to spend a lot more a dollar and a quarter off on a twenty five dollars video we have a stout you're here we're six hundred and ninety five dollars on average  classman it's an incredible return it is sixty percent of their purchase price in fact the damage of the analysis of our expert came up with a total damage of about one hundred and seventy five million dollars but it was based on thirty percent the purchase price so these class members who wanted the vouchers are getting double what the damage would have been if we went to trial i mean it's a terrific result one of the key factors your honor is choice in this settlement agreement and it permeates everything because they have no cases not where a court found where choice was given to class members what they wanted and the court said it's because clas members the voucher or the coupon cases in the credit cases where planes council throws this think in the class members some may want to but most may say forget i'm not going to bother with two or three dollars or whatever this is a big number but session and there it's probably a reason for that which i can explain but yes mort did because in the recent case which we cited it's more in the core which was based on it was like sixty percent or so the cash of sixty five dollars and now this one was  one reason was it was a lot of publicity about this and there was a lot of questions raised about or these products harmful to class members and after a number of years st of all the whole issue of get off guessing pretty much was eliminated in a very short time period whether it was a month or two or three we're not talking years later people have had these in their homes and basically most people said i don't probably i don't feel there's a health risk i mean i've lived this for years we're not having problems i don't need vouch but fifteen percent twenty seven thousand people and significant twenty seven thousand people said i'm on about years now they have different choices this gets to some of the factors that come up in some of the cases is what do you do with the six hundred and ninety five dollars on after that you get we can go out my new floor and replace your floor in some of that twenty seven thousand dollars probably want to do that they could either get comparable flooring it maybe not spend a dollar more or little bit less expensive not spend a dollar more some may say oh you know what i'll buy and i'll get a one thousand dollars i'll put up three hundred dollars and others may say you know what i don't want floor they try to argue in their brief there is very limited choices well lumber has five hundred and thirty other products out there that people can get and not spend a dime out of their own pocket they cited some of the products like countertops and so on but there are hundreds of them so some people who took the voucher where we said probably going to get a greater value we don't know how much we estimate i may have said you know what i can buy a lot of stuff with the spellchecker and that's a good deal for me and some others probably said i'm going to use it for a floor but the in the class members had choices and i think again every iran or so has said i think there is no case out there that i'm aware of where a court has seen a choice given and they said this is a coupon because it is critical because you're getting it's not being foisted on the class members here it is you've got to take it you have a choice even it's a critical fact to consider but there were other factors that the courts have used  n the online d v d case and once and again when you look at those factors they point to the fact that this is a voucher and it's not a coupon so one of them is is this credit only for a little limited number of no question it looks to me like and they think you there there are some differences here and the cases that are maybe called the abusive type coupon situations and you're talking about them say the facts dictate otherwise in forty states you've got three years to use in seven states it's unlimited this is a choice when this case again if there was no appeal classman was robbery and the benefit of these  their vouchers but you know people who want these vouchers are going to who selected vouchers are going to use a three either says it's not like a thirty day sixty day ninety day short term so expiration day factor factor is do they have a limited number of products or a lot of products every single factor ports of used way in favor of this is not who you want to use and this is a question of law as opposed to the abuse of discretion standard  settlement approval but if it is by chance then we strenuously again isn't a crew on it wouldn't really change any because at the end of the day there are two ways to then analyze attorney the one sin is is that if the coupon recovery is not used to decide that the redemption analysis is not used so you would fees based on the time class excuse me class counsel expended percent of our time so the judge clearly felt the fee award was fair and reasonable and there's really no basis to kind of even if you started considering that this was a coupon he's essentially made the analysis of what is a fair objectors did not even argue in their briefs that quick pace proper you know there's no case law after it's been approved by hundreds and hundreds of district court judges and of course the six circuit in the  now i know this judge bullies decision from a week or so ago and it's clearly not it's no one else out there who has done so certainly not find in a presidential but the reason why there is no harm to class members of lawyers getting  even argue they argue adequacy failings of counsel they don't argue fairness but if you look under the jiffy lube factors on both you know in our brief and in his opinion actually you know this issue doesn't come up and it's you know they they to prevent these professional objectors and i guess those words with these gentlemen the professional there is from coming in and messing up settlements and preventing class members from getting what they should get and trying to kind of blackmail plaintiff's lawyers to pay them off that's what the purpose was and it's been used effectively over the years for that not every case but in many many class actions and again until just a week so go i'm not aware of any judge having a problem with  o the really have to address it no and it would be really terrible to the lay payment to class members by another year or more to have them go back and address it maybe them appeal again just so i do not believe  dress any further questions your honor i think i've basically ended up covering everything but i'd like to thank you so the quick pay provision does harm the class especially in this unique context there's a limited amount of cash they took most of it and then left the class with and i agree that question needs to be addressed st but i don't i think the court should not just stop there settlement has to be reversed because number one you have to apply strict scrutiny under cap and the court didn't do that and then number two even if the fees are corrected under it's possible that disproportionate ratio on fees to council survives the quick pay will remain and then lumber correct the class if you look at the the order the district court for submitted included a very short analysis of starr and acknowledge that it was not engaging in a proper look granted by the district court correctly mean it's matter of law when you pay this is a common fund in say the common fund is thirty six million dollars you are making an council getting twenty eight percent of twenty million dollars they guy over fifty percent of twenty one million dollars so all the cash i drained out of the saddle and it up in class coupons is fourteen million dollars but not asking class council to today twenty eight percent of the fourteen million dollars in coupons is coupons and apparently there are great coupons million dollars coupons that's not what happened here in the district court consider the coupon value you think so the one seems to apply out when the coupon value is not