When Judge Collins asked Maya if the judge’s order had an “articulation” issue of not explaining the court’s reasoning, Maya agreed, but added that there is also a real “fairness” problem with the settlement as a whole “beyond any just matter of articulating what scrutiny was applied and the outcome of that,” and that the settlement approval should be reversed and sent back to the lower court because it’s overall a bad deal.
David Lietz of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, who represents the settlement class, when confronted with Judge Collins’ “rubber stamp” assessment, told him he agreed that Judge Carter’s order “doesn’t articulate with specificity what exactly he relied upon,” but said if the panel looked “holistically” at the transcripts and full record of the proceedings it is obvious the judge developed an “extensive record through the court hearings and talks about why it is that he rejects the allegations of collusion.”
Judge Collins disagreed, and said Judge Carter expressed various concerns and “then in the order, nothing. I don’t know what he did with it.”
