why we don't have standing mr franz the only issue is that he did not provide proof of purchase at the time of objecting and he did follow quite but he did not file proof of purchase at the time of objecting which is a requirement supposedly under the settlement agreement and that's the basis for our objection in this case is that they imposed a higher per on objectors in order to claim money in this case you didn't need to h something that was crafted on to dissuade objectors and that's a basis for of objecting to the settlement additionally she did not provide or file a proof of klein unlike mr friends and our position on that is that you don't have to it the objection that she purchased it and as far as a claim form being filed that's not a requirement to maintain standing to maintain objection or to appeal to for purposes of just  because of her signature on that that she's satisfied it is not lost pretty well established if you presume class ever unless otherwise show you i'm asking something different i'm trying to figure out you don't take the position that a person could object just by giving their name period correct ok you know that they have to manifest some statement they are a class member ok is there any long on the mechanism through which somebody who wishes to have standing to object has to manifest that in order to show that they have standing i'm not clear on that i mean i'm not i can't think specific i can tell you that in this case the affection sites that expect that class members may receive a payment in the range of twenty to fifty dollars per player which could increase up to the approximate average price of ninety four dollars or decrease depending on various fac september twenty fourth the settlement hearing the final settlement hearing about thirty five days in between that period of time the record shows that by september twenty fourth counsel for the defendant's counsel for the p moon that the clink class members were going to get something less than nine dollars something less than nine dollars they knew that thirty five days before the final settlement here twenty percent of the high end of the estimation they knew that thirty five days before the hearing and then do anything about it they acted in their own self interest to protect their feet and they did not notify the court prior to the hearing they did not correct that class members are relying on the expertise of class calles when they decide to put a number on it what would you stick by that range i'm just trying to jam with the range is why isn't it fair to read a range of being from almost nothing to the purchase price because i would say literally does it and he says other things but it also does say that it's not as if this is you get twenty to fifty dollars and maybe as many as ninety four he says you probably won't get ninety four and then there's the twenty to fifty but it could also be less because they could get less says it's all that money for what it says for it's reasonable twenty dollars i think it's unreasonable think you're going to get something less than twenty dollars yes we're talking about something that's eight dollars forty four cents at this point so yes and those communicated that you think would be one reason issue so apart from how you read the original one it is you're making an argument that they had more current information thirty five days before the  notice is misleading and there is some obligation to where you are i don't think if this core determines that that notice is not mislead and the idea that someone is going to receive eight dollars and forty four cents when they've been told this other stuff is not misleading you're correct it doesn't make however with all due respect there's no question that this is misleading in the idea that when they found out it was misleading when they knew it was all substantially wrong they didn't do anything about it they acted to protect their craft the notice everybody thinks this is the premium is what right it's not the point of the the suit is not to say necessarily you're going to get full recovery of the purchase price of the shoe because the amount that's fixed can't possibly capture that unless there's very few people who claim right so everybody has a sense that the amount you're going to be capturing as correct why isn't this crafted quite sensibly which is to say look at very few people get in you're going to get the high end but if a lot of people get in it could be really low but as it looks to us right now this is our guess as to where it's going to h we wouldn't be standing here ok however when they put it out there that you can reasonably expect to get twenty to fifty dollars those class members are represented by lying on that representation of well heeled well thought of well seasoned class council they got it wrong i'm not saying they did it deliberately however when they found out about it they didn't do anything to correct it once they took the affirmative obligation to say you want to reasonably expect to receive twenty to fifty dollars they should be held accountable for that they didn't have to put that in there but when they did they have to stand behind them recognize there are two objectives here who stand in slightly different posture before you miss king comes before you never having filed any notice of claim her objection is not attested to what is going to sign there's no affidavit there's nothing that says it's literally hold up distribution to in this case hundreds of thousands of hours is done in literally every case that i'm aware of people must come in they can just raise their hand say i'm a class member right jack and then hold up a class action settlement  pinpoint is eight or nine well i lived there and tell me how to do this in the hill case you had class membership came for this court and challenge the class action settlement and among miss kane no matter what this court does she's not going to be benefited benefited or suffer any detriment as a consequence of any ruling of this quarter or any other fees we believe that it is a abuse of discretion standard where the district court clearly abused its discretion and we also believe that great deference is warranted to the district court under a circuit  over relied on improper and improper factor or made a serious mistake in evaluating the factors in this instance we believe that the district court did a very very thorough review of all of the material facts in the case and in fact even required of the parties to do it dish and supplemental briefings with additional declarations after the hearing had been concluded it wanted to satisfy yourself that it had no further questions and that all of the issues had been fully addressed in addition the objectors appellants year were allowed to participate in much of that briefing and the district court noted that it had answered all of the questions that it the fact that there was no minimum stated in the notice and i think that it does get to the heart of the matter if there was a minimum guarantee in the no just then like the court pointed out if we said absolutely you're getting twenty dollars then that would be one thing but we didn't say that and the court very specifically addressed that issue and said there was no minimum there was no guarantee it was it was an estimate and it was a range and it's and it could've been a range in that part of the  reference to there being no minimum is where you say that they're addressing the argument and rejecting i do believe it is wrong because i believe that mr cain's argument is that there was a minimum although i will point out that in the briefing it appears that  in certain points of the briefing helen say that there should have been a minimum negotiated but there wasn't so they do in some respects agree with us that there was no minimum in the group of the district court that there was no i think the argument they're making is that expressed in those terms but i do believe that by saying there was no guarantee of a minimum it addressed the fact that if there's no guarantee of a minimum it says and it says that it could be a range and it's an estimate it can't be to sleep but if it says it's reasonable to expect in the middle of the range isn't that different than saying that you shouldn't expect and there's no minimum but it's reasonable to expect in the middle if that turns out that it's not reasonable to expect that isn't that misleading well at the time could decrease the reason for mentioning that middle range we wanted to give people some idea of what would be reasonable but we also specifically stated that it could decrease and the district court properly at the hearing actually said that exactly what this court said which is it is possible it could be less and we wanted to tell people that it could be less because there are moving parts that people can't know when you're writing the  notice the district court didn't fact approve all of the notices and while we believe that it was not misleading we do believe that we very specifically told people that it could be less and that we did the very best that we could in terms of as well as injunctive relief and in terms of the monetary refund the court analyzed the amount not only in terms of just they were on mount but did a proper analysis of taking into account the possible risks associated with achieving a recovery a trial as well as what would have been achieved at trial and the district court recognized that there is a very real possibility not only of achieving nothing but that the amount that we recovered which was approximately nine or ten percent after all attorneys fees and expenses of the retail value of the shoe is intentionally what we might have recovered at trial and he said that it was within the range of what a person who if there were such a thing as an individual claim for that amount of money possibly could have achieved that given that damages in these types of cases is to prove the premium or the park entirely and getting nothing and also recognize that there is a presumption that comes into effect when there's and then there's a proper amount of discovery where the parties are able to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their case yes and in this case we had probably all of the documents we were ever going to have from we had gotten full document discovery and we were on the eve of class certification at the time when we actually settled we had been negotiating a potential settlement for quite a long time however we did go to a mediation which failed because we felt that it wasn't enough money offered to us so we did have a very court recognise that the that was willing to entirely stop its advertising campaign despite the fact that it had taken the position in the litigation that the ads were perfectly fine and they were not misleading and no court ruled that they were misleading so that was something that was important to us in fact that's what we would have asked for a trial in addition not only that but then people also agreed to not put out any further representations in advertisements that were not supported by scientific reliable evidence and this was also something that we felt was important that we would have asked for a trial so in some the district court when it analyzed what the  we had properly proved that the settlement was fair or reasonable not i just want to take one moment to discuss the attorney's fees the district court agreed that that the twenty five percent that we requested on the plaintiff's side was was fair reasonable and adequate that the twenty five percent is in fact the benchmark and that he and the objectors in this case once they agreed to twenty five percent as a benchmark  we had sixty eight percent of our lodestar represented by that amount at the time of the hearing and now it's obviously much less than that i think the main argument of the object is that there was a clear sailing provision that was and the district court recognized that it could be called that and that heightened scrutiny was warranted and it gave it heightened scrutiny in fact we had to do a simple supplemental submission after the hearing we explained our negotiations and all of the things that happened that led to this settlement so the district court did apply heightened scrutiny even though the appellant's here are just saying without a lot of evidence that that there was not heightened scrutiny we believe that there was in the district court properly evaluated and it's not an issue as far as the no or too miss k we've cited this case in our brief it's a nicely versus network associates case she's been harmed she can or that this court could provide case and we did lose on standing because we did not make a suggestion to the underline said we only made an objection to the attorneys here we've got a  or cost of the class members which is what this class action was brought up and finally the fee in this case is based on the idea that class members were going to get twenty to fifty