of process — may effectively bind the interests of absent parties is, of course, a topic that has given rise to some of the monuments of federal jurisprudence. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1877); International Shoe Co. other example of instances in which the interests of an absent party may be constitutionally affected by a state court judgment. What makes binding absent parties in class actions constitutionally acceptable is either that: (1) under the provisions of Chancery Court Rule 23(b)(3), absent class members, in effect, elect not to opt-out of the class and thus can be said effectively to consent to the foreign court exercising jurisdiction over their'property (See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 811, 105 S.Ct. 2965, 2974, 86 L.Ed.2d 628 (1985))(<HOLDING>), or (2) that under Rule 23(b)(1) or (2) the
holding that an absent member of a subsection 23b3 class can be bound by the results of litigation about which that member was notified and given an opportunity to be heard holding that limitations period begins running anew from the date when the class member exercises the right to opt out because before this time the class member is deemed to be actively prosecuting her rights holding that an essential component of procedural fairness is an opportunity to be heard holding that plaintiff who was iranian is a member of a protected class recognizing cause of action by class member against class counsel for negligence in providing notice