the fact that they are allocating the class members’ property, there should be little occasion to sail near those shoals. 21 . Of course, the district court has inherent equitable authority to resolve any issues that are not covered by the terms of the settlement agreement. See Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth § 21.66, at 334 (Federal Judicial Center 2004). 22 .See, e.g., Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co., No. 06-1743, 2011 WL 1103683, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 24, 2011) (unpublished) (making a cy pres distribution where the settlement agreement provided that the district court was to pay over any “excess undistributed Medical Monitoring Settlement Class funds” to “a local Section 501(c)(3) charity for the benefit of” the village that encompassed the class area). 23 . See Wilson, 880 F.2d at 816 (<HOLDING>). 24 . The Agreement defines the term
holding that the district court abused its discretion by ordering a cy pres distribution where neither side contended that each class members recovery would be so small as to make an individual distribution economically impracticable holding that once district court entered order approving the settlement of class claims it could not alter the class in the absence of egregious error recognizing cause of action by class member against class counsel for negligence in providing notice holding that where named plaintiff was employee of class counsel district court did not abuse its discretion by denying class certification holding that it is an abuse of discretion for a district court to order a cy pres distribution when any party to or participant in a class action  including the defendant and class counsel  has a valid equitable interest in the unclaimed settlement funds