have included the 2016 Amendment. Three remaining objections express dissatisfaction with the amount of the settlement, claiming that class members are receiving too little of the amounts to which they believe they are entitled. ECF Nos. 136, 140, 155. The final objection states an intent to “appeal the amount the lawyers will receive” and “appeal on the benefits [of] settlement,” which the Court construes as an objection to the amount of the settlement. ECF No. 172 at 1. The Court acknowledges these objectors’ frustrations but, as discussed above, nonetheless finds the settlement amount to be reasonable given the risks and delay of further litigation. On balance, the Court concludes that the reaction of the class weighs in favor of approval. See, e.g., Churchill Vill., 361 F.3d at 577 (<HOLDING>). After reviewing all of the required factors,
recognizing that low number of objectors and optouts strongly favors settlement and that the vast disparity between the number of potential class members who received notice of the settlement and the number of objectors creates a strong presumption that this factor weighs in favor of the settlement holding that there was no record of a hearing about settlement objections holding that unnamed class members who had contested fairness of proposed settlement and attempted to opt out of class action were entitled to appeal settlement under virtualrepresentation doctrine holding that approval of a settlement that received 45 objections 05 and 500 optouts 56 out of 90000 class members was proper holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members