In Eubank v. Pella Corp., 753 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2014) (Nos. 13-2091, 13-2133, 13-2136, 13-2162, 13-2202), the parties settled a class action alleging defects in manufactured windows.  The Seventh Circuit had previously affirmed the certification of two separate classes in the case.  Under the settlement, the parties agreed to a single settlement class, which the Seventh Circuit stated ignored the adversity between the two subgroups.  The Seventh Circuit found the settlement to be grossly inequitable, “even scandalous.”  The opinion catalogs numerous defects the court found with the settlement:  lead counsel was the son-in-law of the lead plaintiff, presenting conflicts; named plaintiffs who had opposed the settlement had been removed by class counsel and replaced with class representatives in favor of the settlement; plaintiffs’ counsel was facing professional and financial challenges which the court stated suggested the settlement was inappropriate; the settlement provided $11 million in cash to class counsel and uncertain relief to class members; the settlement allowed defendants to prepay a portion of the class fee before notice was sent; the settlement procedure “strews obstacles in the path” of claimants; the claims process was difficult to understand and navigate; the trial court failed to value the overall settlement; and the notice to the class did not reveal the substantial problems with the settlement.  The court concluded that “almost every danger sign in a class action settlement that our court and other courts have warned district court judges to be on the lookout for was present in this case.”