What you find to be "fair and reasonable" and what the court considered as "fair and reasonable" are two entirely different things.
Marketing matters.
In an attempt to garner releases, our reps MW and ES marketed the settlement as a "F&R, meaningful recovery". That's quite different from Judge W. describing POR 7 as legally F&R. Different context, different expectations. It doesn't matter what the court thought of MW's declaration to us, it's how we interpreted this marketing. And almost all retail doesn't believe this settlement to be F&R.
They can't tell you that shit on a stick is the "F&R, meaningful recovery" we were all promised. Period.