his notice of appeal filed within 90 days after judgment was timely. See Tex.RApp. P. 26.1(a)(1). 2. Other courts and commentators agree that objecting shareholders may appeal without intervening in the trial court. Lapiner may also appeal the denial of his objection for a second, independent reason: the trial court invited the objection: “[T]he majority of courts to consider the question,” as well as respected commentators, agree that a current shareholder who objects to the settlement of a derivative suit need not intervene in order to appeal the denial of his objection. In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., 631 F.3d 913, 917 n. 2 (8th Cir.2011); see, e.g., Kaplan, 192 F.3d at 67; Rosenbaum, 64 F.3d at 1443; Bell Atl. Corp., 2 F.3d at 1310; Cohen, 127 F.2d at 724 (<HOLDING>); Saylor, 78 F.R.D. at 152-53; Ackert v.
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 shareholder who unsuccessfully tried to intervene but also objected to derivative settlement in response to trial courts notice had the right to appeal courts decision approving the settlement holding a settlement privilege exists as to thirdparty discovery of settlement negotiations 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