not be approved. This being the case, he was like a defendant who is summoned by process of court and after an adverse ruling has the right to appeal.” (citing Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 495, 53 S.Ct. 721, 77 L.Ed. 1331 (1933))). It would make little sense to require the trial court to invite and consider objections from shareholders, but then prevent objecting shareholders from appealing the trial court’s decision to deny their objections and approve the settlement. Kaplan, 192 F.3d at 67. Moreover, requiring an objector to intervene in the litigation in order to appeal the trial court’s denial of his objection would create “more work for all involved with no corresponding benefit.” City of San Benito, 109 S.W.3d at 755; see also Devlin, 536 U.S. at 8, 122 S.Ct. 2005 (<HOLDING>). The defendants themselves recognized as much
recognizing that requiring an objector to intervene in a class action in order to appeal the approval of a settlement would only add an additional layer of complexity before the appeal of the settlement approval may finally be heard holding that an unnamed plaintiff that did not intervene nonetheless had standing to appeal a class action settlement holding that unnamed class members who object in a timely manner to approval of a settlement at a fairness hearing may appeal without first intervening holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt holding that in the context of a settlement contract the defrauded party may either 1 rescind the settlement or 2 ratify the settlement retain the proceeds and institute an action to recover fraud damages