With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that when trial courts decision turns on question of law appellate review is de novo
B: 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
C: 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
D: holding that appellate review is precluded when the error is invited
C.