This Court has never addressed two important questions in class action litigation. First, whether nonclass counsel is entitled to an award of counsel fees and costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) for work performed prior to the appointment of lead counsel where that work is identical to the pre-appointment work performed by appointed counsel. Second, whether a class action settlement agreement which only provided fees and costs to class counsel for pre-appointment work creates two unequal plaintiff classes.

A. Does denying fees and costs to non-class counsel for pre-appointment work while awarding fees and costs to class counsel for identical work create a conflict among the Circuits warranting this Court's review based upon Gottlieb v. Barry, 43 F.3d 474, 489 (10th Cir. 1994) and In re Cendant Corp. Securities Litigation, 404 F.3d 173, 179 (3rd Cir. 2005)?

B. Does the award of attorneys' fees and costs only to class counsel for pre-appointment work run afoul of this court's decision in Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478 (1980) and Amchem Products Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 627 (1997) by creating two unequal plaintiff classes: one whose recovery is reduced by attorneys' fees and costs and another, represented by select counsel, who get the full benefit of the recovery with no reduction for fees and costs?

C. Does this decision create a conflict of interest for class counsel resulting in a constitutional infirmity as articulated in Amchem, 521 U.S. at 626, n.20 and Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 856 (1999) by denying non-class counsels' clients their due process right to adequate representation?

D. Does the denial of a fee award and costs to non-class counsel where the court fails to articulate an objective basis for its denial run afoul of this Court's decision in Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn., 559 U.S. 542, 558 (2010)?

Whether non-class counsel is entitled to an award of counsel fees and costs for pre-appointment work, whether a class action settlement agreement providing fees only to class counsel for pre-appointment work creates unequal plaintiff classes, whether the denial of fees to non-class counsel creates a conflict of interest and constitutional infirmity, whether the denial of fees to non-class counsel without an objective basis violates precedent