When a class action settlement is objected to and subsequently approved by the court, objectors sometimes appeal, which can substantially delay the settlement process including distribution of settlement funds to class members. To mitigate the risks and costs of such delays, parties to the settlement can ask the court to require objectors to post an appeal bond. This was successful in a recent case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

In re East Palestine Train Derailment, – F.4th –, 2025 WL 3089606 (6th Cir. Nov. 5, 2025), involved a train derailment in Ohio resulting in the release of toxic chemicals. Property owners in the area brought a class action, and the railroad agreed to pay $600 million for a class settlement. Five class members objected, raising concerns about the notice and adequacy of evidence used to evaluate the settlement, and appealed the order approving the settlement. The settling parties requested, and the district court imposed, an appeal bond of $850,000 to cover anticipated administrative costs due to the delay caused by the appeal, along with taxable expenses.

The objectors failed to timely post any portion of the bond. Instead, they filed a motion in the Court of Appeals seeking to reduce or eliminate the bond, but without filing a motion for a stay or a timely notice of appeal from the order requiring the bond. The Sixth Circuit explained that the objectors would not have prevailed on a motion for stay because they were not likely to succeed on the merits and did not face irreparable harm where they could have appealed the bond order. The objectors also failed to file a timely motion in the district court to extend the time to appeal the bond order (they filed a motion that was late by one day). Neither the district court nor the Sixth Circuit could extend the time to appeal the bond order because the 30-day period had run.

The Sixth Circuit further concluded that it was appropriate to dismiss the objectors’ appeal from the settlement (which was timely) because the objectors failed to timely post the required bond. Dismissal of the appeal was appropriate because: (1) the delay in disbursement of the settlement funds substantially prejudiced the class; (2) the objectors had no valid justification for failing to pay at least a portion of the required amount even if they were unable to pay the entire bond; and (3) the objectors were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their appeal from the settlement because the settlement notice was adequate and the terms appeared to be reasonable.

Seeking an appeal bond may be a practical and effective strategy for parties to a class action settlement. It protects the interests of the class and settling defendant(s), deters meritless appeals, and ensures that objectors are serious and prepared to bear the costs of delay.

Tags: Sixth Circuit
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Wystan Ackerman Wystan Ackerman

I am a partner at the law firm of Robinson+Cole in Hartford, Connecticut, USA.  My contact information is on the contact page of my blog.  I really enjoy receiving questions, comments, suggestions and even criticism from readers.  So please e-mail me if you…

I am a partner at the law firm of Robinson+Cole in Hartford, Connecticut, USA.  My contact information is on the contact page of my blog.  I really enjoy receiving questions, comments, suggestions and even criticism from readers.  So please e-mail me if you have something to say.  For those looking for my detailed law firm bio, click here.  If you want a more light-hearted and hopefully more interesting summary, read on:

People often ask about my unusual first name, Wystan.  It’s pronounced WISS-ten.  It’s not Winston.  There is no “n” in the middle.  It comes from my father’s favorite poet, W.H. (Wystan Hugh) Auden.  I’ve grown to like the fact that because my name is unusual people tend to remember it better, even if they don’t pronounce it right (and there is no need for anyone to use my last name because I’m always the only Wystan).

I grew up in Deep River, Connecticut, a small town on the west side of the Connecticut River in the south central part of the state.  I’ve always had strong interests in history, politics and baseball.  My heroes growing up were Abraham Lincoln and Wade Boggs (at that time the third baseman for the Boston Red Sox).  I think it was my early fascination with Lincoln that drove me to practice law.  I went to high school at The Williams School in New London, Connecticut, where I edited the school newspaper, played baseball, and was primarily responsible for the installation of a flag pole near the school entrance (it seemed like every other school had one but until my class raised the money and bought one at my urging, Williams had no flag pole).  As a high school senior, my interest in history and politics led me to score high enough on a test of those subjects to be chosen as one of Connecticut’s two delegates to the U.S. Senate Youth Program, which further solidified my interest in law and government.  One of my mentors at Williams was of the view that there were far too many lawyers and I should find something more useful to do, but if I really had to be a lawyer there was always room for one more.  I eventually decided to be that “one more.”  I went on to Bowdoin College, where I wrote for the Bowdoin Orient and majored in government, but took a lot of math classes because I found college math interesting and challenging.  I then went to Columbia Law School, where I was lucky enough to be selected as one of the minions who spent their time fastidiously cite-checking and Blue booking hundred-plus-page articles in the Columbia Law Review.  I also interned in the chambers of then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor when she was a relatively new judge on the Second Circuit, my only connection to someone who now has one-ninth of the last word on what constitutes the law of our land.  I graduated from Columbia in 2001, then worked at Skadden Arps in Boston before returning to Connecticut and joining Robinson+Cole, one of the largest Connecticut-based law firms.  At the end of 2008, I was elected a partner at Robinson+Cole.

I’ve worked on class actions since the start of my career.  Being in the insurance capital of Hartford, we have a national insurance litigation practice and most of the class actions I’ve defended have been brought against insurance companies. I’ve also handled some involving products liability, managed care, health care, utilities, financial services, higher education and environmental issues.

My insurance class action practice usually takes me outside of Connecticut.  I’ve had the pleasure of working on cases in various federal and state courts and collaborating with great lawyers across the country.  While class actions are an increasingly large part of my practice, I don’t do exclusively class action work.  The rest of my practice involves litigating insurance coverage cases, often at the appellate level.  That also frequently takes me outside of Connecticut.  A highlight of my career thus far was working on Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, the U.S. Supreme Court’s first Class Action Fairness Act case.  I was Counsel of Record for Standard Fire on the cert petition, and had the pleasure of working with Ted Boutrous on the merits briefing and oral argument.

I started this blog because writing is one of my favorite things to do and I enjoy following developments in class action law, writing about them and engaging in discussion with others who have an in interest in this area.  It’s a welcome break from day-to-day practice, keeps me current, broadens my network and results in some new business.

When I’m not at work, you might find me running lines or watching a musical with my teenage daughter who hopes to be a Broadway star (or taking her to voice or dance lessons) or reading a good book.

Read more about Wystan Ackerman
Show more Show less
Related Posts
Advisory Committee on Federal Civil Rules Considering Potential Amendments to Class Action Rule and Potential Third-Party Litigation Funding Rule
November 3, 2025
Data Breach Class Action Settlement Approval Affirmed by Ninth Circuit with Attorneys’ Fee Award Reversed and Remanded
March 3, 2025
Attorneys’ Fees Award in Data Breach Class Action Settlement Reversed by Eighth Circuit
August 5, 2024