The following excerpt is from Haar v. Allen ex rel. All Others Similarly Situated Doing Bus. Allen ex rel. All Others Similarly Situated Doing Business, 16-1944 (2nd Cir. 2017):
the settlement are entirely disregarded, there was clear evidence of substantial support for the settlement. The overwhelming majority of class members chose to participate in the settlement by filing a claim rather than to avail themselves of the right to opt out and continue to pursue litigation, which the settlement permitted. See D'Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78, 87 (2d Cir. 2011).
In any event, the support of the class members (which we believe was clearly evidenced here) is only one factor bearing on the approval of the settlement. The district court's analysis of the terms of the settlement in light of the prospects of the litigation is of even greater significance. That analysis fully persuades us that the settlement, which included substantial equitable remedies that were added following the district court's rejection of a prior settlement as insufficient, was a reasonable compromise of the case, based on experienced counsel's reasonable conclusion that the benefits of the settlement, taken against the risks of proceeding to trial, outweighed the chances of obtaining a better result by litigating the case to conclusion. See Maywal v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 67 F.3d 1072, 1079 (2d Cir. 1995) (emphasizing the need to "compare the terms of the compromise with the likely rewards of litigation").
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.