course of events it will not be altered except for good cause.” Manual for Complex Litigation § 30.17, at 223. “Judge Friendly, who was not given to hyperbole, called settlements induced by a small probability of an immense judgment in a class action ‘blackmail settlements.’ ” In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, 51 F.3d 1293, 1298 (7th Cir.1995) (Posner, J.) (quoting Henry J. Friendly, Federal Jurisdiction: A General View 120 (1973)); accord Rutstein v. Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., 211 F.3d 1228, 1241 n. 21 (11th Cir.2000) (referring to “the blackmail value of a class certification that can aid the plaintiffs in coercing the defendant into a settlement”). Unfortunately, the majority’s excessive deference facilitates such an injustice. Cf. Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, 249 F.3d 672, 675 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Finally, -de-certification would not doom
holding that if a deficient report is served and the trial court grants a thirtyday extension that decision is not subject to appellate review even if it is coupled with a motion to dismiss holding that a prime occasion for rule 23f appellate review is when class certification puts a betyourcompany decision to defendants managers and may induce a substantial settlement even if the plaintiffs position is weak holding that appellate review is precluded when the error is invited holding that when trial courts decision turns on question of law appellate review is de novo holding that the court of appeals must consider and weigh all of the evidence and may only set aside the finding if the evidence is so weak or if the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and unjust