# In Re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation > Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · April 17, 1995 · 55 F.3d 768 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3009953 ## Case - **Full name:** In Re GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION PICK-UP TRUCK FUEL TANK PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Jack French, Robert M. West, Charles E. Merritt, Gary Blades, Dawn and Tracey Best, Gary and Jackie Barnes, Betty Marteny, John and Mary Southands, Edmund Berning, Dale W. Plummer, Edmund and Anneta Casey, John and Connie Yonki, Carl and Kathryn Corona, Dallas and Patricia Nelson, Mynard and Mildred Duncan, Kirby L. Stegman, DeWayne Anderson, Morris and Barbara Betzold, Appellants in No. 94-1064. Rudolph Jenkins, William D. Cunningham, Mather Johnson, Forrest Charles Ginn, Buren William Jones and Martin D. Parkman, Appellants in No. 94-1194. Parish of Jefferson, Appellant in No. 94-1195. the State of New York, Appellant in No. 94-1198. Elton Wilson, Individually, and Frank I. Owen, Individually and on Behalf of the Residents of the State of Alabama, Appellants in No. 94-1202. City of New York, Appellant in No. 94-1203. Betty Youngs, Barbara Phillips, Margaret Engel, Larry Swope, Robbin Maxwell and Center for Auto Safety, Appellants in No. 94-1207. Betty Youngs, Barbara Phillips, Margaret Engel, Larry Swope, Robbin Maxwell and Center for Auto Safety, Appellants in No. 94-1208. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Appellant in No. 94-1219 - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - **Decided:** April 17, 1995 - **Citations:** 55 F.3d 768 - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Becker, Alito, Gibson, History, Standard, Review, Background, Principles, Rule, Settlement - **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3009953 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that an ALJ could consider a portion of a doctor’s diagnosis which appears to be based on a claimant’s own statements as less significant than the doctor’s other findings ## Opinion text Opinions of the United 1995 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-17-1995 In Re: General Motors Corp. Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 94-1064 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995 Recommended Citation "In Re: General Motors Corp." (1995). 1995 Decisions. Paper 98. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995/98 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1995 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________________ Nos. 94-1064, 94-1194, 94-1195 94-1198, 94-1202, 94-1203, 94-1207 94-1208 and 94-1219 ___________ IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION PICK-UP TRUCK FUEL TANK PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION Jack French, Robert M. West, Charles E. Merritt, Gary Blades, Dawn and Tracey Best, Gary and Jackie Barnes, Betty Marteny, John and Mary Southands, Edmund Berning, Dale W. Plummer, Edmund and Anneta Casey, John and Connie Yonki, Carl and Kathryn Corona, Dallas and Patricia Nelson, Mynard and Mildred Duncan, Kirby L. Stegman, DeWayne Anderson, Morris and Barbara Betzold, Appellants in No. 94-1064 Rudolph Jenkins, William D. Cunningham, Mather Johnson, Forrest Charles Ginn, Buren William Jones and Martin D. Parkman, Appellants in No. 94-1194 (Civ. No. 92-cv-06450) _______________________________ Parish of Jefferson, Appellant in No. 94-1195 The State of New York Appellant in No. 94-1198 Elton Wilson, individually, and Frank I. Owen, individually and on behalf of the residents of the State of Alabama Appellants in No. 94-1202 City of New York Appellant in No. 94-1203 Betty Youngs, Barbara Phillips, Margaret Engel, Larry Swope, Robbin Maxwell and Center for Auto Safety Appellants in No. 94-1207 Betty Youngs, Barbara Phillips, Margaret Engel, Larry Swope, Robbin Maxwell and Center for Auto Safety Appellants in No. 94-1208 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation Appellant in No. 94-1219 (Civ. No. MDL-961) _________________________________________ On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ___________________________________ Argued: August 11, 1994 Before: BECKER, ALITO, and GIBSON,* Circuit Judges. (Filed April 17, 1995) JAMES A. SCHINK, ESQUIRE (ARGUED) J. ANDREW LANAGAN, ESQUIRE ROBERT B. ELLIS, ESQUIRE Kirkland & Ellis 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 GEORGE J. LAVIN, JR., ESQUIRE FRANCIS P. BURNS, III, ESQUIRE * . Honorable John R. Gibson, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. Lavin, Coleman, Finarelli & Gray 12th Floor Penn Mutual Tower 510 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 LEE A. SCHUTZMAN, ESQUIRE E.D.WARD C. WOLFE General Motors Corporation New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Blvd. P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, Michigan 48232 Attorneys for General Motors Corporation, Appellee ANDREW M. HUTTON, ESQUIRE DEREK S. CASEY, ESQUIRE PAUL Benton WEEKS, III, ESQUIRE Michaud, Hutton, Fisher & Anderson 8100 East 22nd Street North Building 1200 Wichita, Kansas 67226-2312 Attorneys for Jack French, Robert M. West, Charles E. Merritt, Gary Blades, Dawn Best, Tracey Best, Gary Barnes, Jackie Barnes, Betty Marteny, John Southards, Mary Southards, Edmund Berning, Dale W. Plummer, Edmund Casey, Anneta Casey, John Yonki, Connie Yonki, Carl Corona, Kathryn Corona, Dallas Nelson, Patricia Nelson, Mynard Duncan, Mildred Duncan, Kirby L. Stegman, Dewayne Anderson, Morris Betzold, Barbara Betzold, Dennis Acuma, Appellants DIANE M. NAST, ESQUIRE (ARGUED) WILLIAM E. HOESE, ESQUIRE Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. 1101 Market Street, Suite 2400 Philadelphia, PA 19107-2927 ELIZABETH J. CABRASER, ESQUIRE (ARGUED) MICHAEL F. RAM, ESQUIRE Lieff, Cabraser & Heimann 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Attorneys for Dennis Acuma, John E. Martin, Plaintiff Class/Appellees JOHN W. BARRETT, ESQUIRE Barrett Law Offices 404 Court Square North P.O. Box 631 Lexington, MS 39095 Attorney for John Mayhall, Brendan Hayes, Jimmy Benson, Jimmy Haddock, Dennis Nabors, Marcia Baldwin, Appellees WILLIAM S. LERACH, ESQUIRE Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach 600 West Broadway Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Attorneys for William A. Lewis, David Grubbs, Raymond Carver, Johnny S. Martinez, Robert A. Flowers, Stone Ridge Agri, Inc., James McKinnish, Douglas A. Livingston, Appellees RICHARD S. SCHIFFRIN, ESQUIRE Schiffrin & Craig Three Bala Plaza East Suite 500 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Attorneys for Johnny S. Martinez, Joseph St. Clair, Appellees PATRICIA J. CLANCY, ESQUIRE Senior Deputy County Counsel County of Santa Barbara 105 East Anapamu Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Attorney for City of Los Angeles, Alameda City, Santa Barbara City, Utah City, Washington, City, Amicus-Appellee JAMES E. BUTLER, JR., ESQUIRE (ARGUED) ROBERT D. CHEELEY, ESQUIRE PETER J. DAUGHTERY Butler, Wooten, Overby & Cheeley 1500 2nd Avenue Columbus, GA 31902 Attorneys for Rudolph Jenkins, William D. Cunningham, Mather Johnson, Forrest Charles Ginn, Buren William Jones, Martin D. Parkman, HANS J. LILJEBERG, ESQUIRE Jefferson Parish Attorney's Office New Courthouse Building Suite 527 Gretna, LA 70053 JERON J. LaFARGUE, ESQUIRE Jefferson Parish Attorney's Office 1221 Elmwood Park Blvd. Room 701 Harahan, LA 70123 Attorneys for Parish of Jefferson, Appellant G. OLIVER KOPPELL, ESQUIRE Attorney General of the State of New York PETER H. SCHIFF, ESQUIRE Deputy Solicitor General NANCY A. SPIEGEL, ESQUIRE Assistant Attorney General ANDREA OSER, ESQUIRE Assistant Attorney General New York State Department of Law The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 Attorney for State of New York, Appellant MICHAEL J. EVANS, ESQUIRE STEVEN D. KING, ESQUIRE Longshore, Evans & Longshore 2001 Park Place 650 Park Place Tower Birmingham, AL 35203 Attorneys for Elton Wilson, individually, Frank I. Owen, individually and on behalf of the residents of the State of Alabama, Appellants JOHN HOGROGIAN, ESQUIRE New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Attorney for City of New York, Appellant BRIAN S. WOLFMAN, ESQUIRE (ARGUED) DAVID C. VLADECK, ESQUIRE Public Citizen Litigation Group 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 C. RAY GOLD, ESQUIRE Center for Auto Safety 2001 S Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 Attorneys for Betty Youngs, Barbara Phillips, Margaret Engel, Larry Swope, Robbin Maxwell, Center for Auto Safety, Appellants STEPHEN F.J. MARTIN, ESQUIRE (ARGUED) Assistant Counsel In-Charge STEVEN I. ROTH, ESQUIRE Assistant Counsel ROBERT J. SHEA, ESQUIRE Assistant Chief Counsel JOHN L. HEATON, ESQUIRE Chief Counsel Office of Chief Counsel Department of Transportation 521 Transportation & Safety Bldg. Harrisburg, PA 17120 Attorneys for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellant TABLE OF CONTENTS I. FACTS, PROCEDURAL HISTORY, AND STANDARD OF REVIEW .................. 15 A. General Background.............................. 15 B. The Settlement Agreement........................ 18 C. Approval of the Settlement and Fees............. 20 D. The NHTSA Investigation......................... 23 E. Standard of Review.............................. 24 II. ANATOMY OF THE CLASS CLAIMS ................................... 25 III. RULE 23 - RELEVANT FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES ...................... 27 IV. SETTLEMENT CLASSES .......................................... 33 A. Nature of the Device............................ 33 B. Perceived Problems of Settlement Classes........ 35 C. Arguments Favoring Settlement Classes........... 44 D. Are Settlement Classes Cognizable Under Rule 23?....................................... 50 E. Are the Rule 23(a) and (b) Findings Required for Settlement Classes? Does Finding the Settlement to Be Fair and Reasonable Serve as a Surrogate for the Findings?...................................... 55 F. Can There be a Valid Settlement Class That Would Not Serve as a Valid Litigation Class?.............................. 64 V. IS THE SETTLEMENT CLASS PROPER HERE? ............................ 69 A. Were There Adequate Findings Under Rule 23(a)?......................................... 69 B. Could the Class Requisites Have Been Met On The Current Record?......................... 70 1. Numerosity, Commonality, and Typicality........................... 70 2. Adequacy of Representation................. 71 a. The Situation of the Fleet Owners........................ 71 b. Did Counsel Adequately Represent the Interests of the Entire Class? 73 VI. Is the Settlement Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate?........ 82 A. Adequacy of Settlement - General Principles..................................... 87 1. Valuation of the Settlement - Introduction......................... 88 a. Plaintiffs' Witness Dr. Itmar Simonsen................ 89 b. Inability of Class Members to Use Certificates........... 91 c. Value of the Transfer Option........................ 94 d. GM's Implicit Valuation of the Claim..................... 96 2. Valuing This Settlement Relative to The Relief Requested................. 98 a. The Retrofit Issue............... 99 b. Availability of Other Remedies......................100 B. Complexity of the Suit..........................102 C. Reaction of the Class...........................103 D. Stage of Proceedings............................106 E. Risks of Establishing Liability.................109 F. Risks of Establishing Damages...................113 G. Risks of Maintaining Class Status................116 H. Ability to Withstand Greater Judgment...........120 I. Summary.........................................120 VII. APPROVAL OF THE ATTORNEYS' FEE AWARD ...........................122 VIII. OTHER ISSUES; CONCLUSION ...................................131 _____________________________ OPINION OF THE COURT _____________________________ BECKER, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approving the settlement of a large class action following its certification of a so- called settlement class. Numerous objectors challenge the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement. The objectors also challenge: (1) the district court's failure to certify the class formally; (2) its denial of discovery concerning the settlement negotiations; (3) the adequacy of the notice as it pertained to the fee request; and (4) its approval of the attorneys' fee agreement between the defendants and the attorneys for the class, which the class notice did not fully disclose, thereby (allegedly) depriving the class of the practical opportunity to object to the proposed fee award at the fairness hearing. The class members are purchasers, over a 15 year period, of mid- and full-sized General Motors pick-up trucks with model C, K, R, or V chassis, which, it was subsequently determined, may have had a design defect in their location of the fuel tank. Objectors claim that the side-saddle tanks rendered the trucks especially vulnerable to fuel fires in side collisions. Many of the class members are individual owners (i.e., own a single truck), while others are "fleet owners," who own a number of trucks. Many of the fleet owners are governmental agencies. As will become apparent, the negotiated settlement treats fleet owners quite differently from individual owners, a fact with serious implications for the fairness of the settlement and the adequacy of representation of the class. While all the issues we have mentioned are significant (except for the discovery issue), the threshold and most important issue concerns the propriety and prerequisites of settlement classes. The settlement class device is not mentioned in the class action rule, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 1 . Rule 23 provides, in pertinent part: (a) Prerequisites to a Class Action. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. (b) Class Actions Maintainable. An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition: (1) the prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members of the class would create a risk of (A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class, or (B) adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; or (2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby Rather it is a judicially crafted procedure. Usually, the request for a settlement class is presented to the court by both plaintiff(s) and defendant(s); having provisionally settled the case before seeking certification, the parties move for simultaneous class certification and settlement approval. Because this process is removed from the normal, adversarial, litigation mode, the class is certified for settlement purposes only, not for litigation. Sometimes, as here, the parties reach a settlement while the case is in litigation posture, only then moving the court, with the defendants' stipulation as to the (..continued) making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; or (3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The matters pertinent to the findings include: (A) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action. (c) Determination by Order Whether Class Action to be Maintained; Notice; Judgment; Actions Conducted Partially as Class Actions. (1) As soon as practicable after the commencement of an action brought as a class action, the court shall determine by order whether it is to be so maintained. An order under this subdivision may be conditional, and may be altered or amended before the decision on the merits. . . . (e) Dismissal or Compromise. A class action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the court directs. class's compliance with the Rule 23 requisites, for class certification and settlement approval. In any event, the court disseminates notice of the proposed settlement and fairness hearing at the same time it notifies class members of the pendency of class action determination. Only when the settlement is about to be finally approved does the court formally certify the class, thus binding the interests of its members by the settlement. The first Manual for Complex Litigation [hereinafter MCL] strongly disapproved of settlement classes. Nevertheless, courts have increasingly used the device in recent years, and subsequent manuals (MCL 2d and MCL 3d (in draft)) have relented, endorsing settlement classes under carefully controlled circumstances, but continuing to warn of the potential for abuse. This increased use of settlement classes has proven extremely valuable for disposing of major and complex national and international class actions in a variety of substantive areas ranging from toxic torts (Agent Orange) and medical devices (Dalkon Shield, breast implant), to antitrust cases (the beef or cardboard container industries). But their use has not been problem free, provoking a barrage of criticism that the device is a vehicle for collusive settlements that primarily serve the interests of defendants -- by granting expansive protection from law suits -- and of plaintiffs' counsel -- by generating large fees gladly paid by defendants as a quid pro quo for finally disposing of many troublesome claims. After reflection upon these concerns, we conclude that Rule 23 permits courts to achieve the significant benefits created by settlement classes so long as these courts abide by all of the fundaments of the Rule. Settlement classes must satisfy the Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, as well as the relevant 23(b) requirements, usually (as in this case) the (b)(3) superiority and predominance standards. We also hold that settlement class status (on which settlement approval depends) should not be sustained unless the record establishes, by findings of the district judge, that the same requisites of the Rule are satisfied. Additionally, we hold that a finding that the settlement was fair and reasonable does not serve as a surrogate for the class findings, and also that there is no lower standard for the certification of settlement classes than there is for litigation classes. But so long as the four requirements of 23(a) and the appropriate requirement(s) of 23(b) are met, a court may legitimately certify the class under the Rule. In this case the district judge made no Rule 23 findings, and significant questions remain as to whether the class could have met the requisites of the rule had the district court applied them. Principally at issue is adequacy of representation. In particular, the objectors contend that there is a conflict between the positions of individual owners on the one hand and fleet owners on the other hand. The disparity in settlement benefits enjoyed by these different groups, objectors argue, creates an intra-class conflict that precludes the finding of adequacy of representation required by the rule. Moreover, they submit, the large number of different defenses available under the laws of the several states involved also creates a potentially serious commonality and typicality problem. We conclude that the objectors' adequacy of representation claim probably has merit. At all events, the district court did not properly evaluate the differential impact of the settlement on individual fleet owners, and should determine on remand whether the conflicts among class members are so great as to preclude certification (or at least sufficient to require the creation of subclasses). The district court should also focus on the commonality and typicality problems, to determine whether the national scope of the class litigation and the plethora of defenses available in different jurisdictions prevent these requirements from being met. For the reasons that follow at some length, we conclude that, although settlement classes are valid generally, this settlement class was not properly certified. We also conclude that the settlement is not fair and adequate; more precisely, we hold that the district court abused its discretion in determining that it was, primarily because the district court erred in accepting plaintiffs' unreasonably high estimate of the settlement's worth, in over-estimating the risk of maintaining class status and of establishing liability and damages, and in misinterpreting the reaction of the class. Finally, although our disposition of the foregoing issues makes it unnecessary for us to pass on the approval of the attorneys fees, we clarify the governing standards for these fee awards to guide the district court on remand. We therefore reverse the challenged order of the district court and remand for further proceedings. I. FACTS, PROCEDURAL HISTORY, AND STANDARD OF REVIEW A. General Background Between 1973 and 1987, General Motors sold over 6.3 million C/K pickup trucks with side-mounted fuel tanks.2 In late October 1992, after the public announcement of previously undisclosed information regarding the safety of the fuel tank placement in GM pickups, consumer class action lawsuits were filed in several jurisdictions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") commenced an investigation of the alleged defects relating to side-impact fires on these trucks, and consumer advocacy groups sought a recall.3 On November 5, 1992, plaintiffs in one action sought to enjoin allegedly misleading communications to putative class 2 . The class includes both mid-and full-size trucks with chassis model types C, K, R, or V. 3 . See note 5 infra. members and filed an application for expedited discovery. On November 8 and 9, 1992, GM filed notices of removal of this and other state court actions, and a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL Panel") to transfer and consolidate all actions for pretrial purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The MDL Panel transferred all related actions to the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on February 26, 1993. Ultimately, dozens of actions were filed in various courts throughout the United States on behalf of consumer classes; the federal cases were dismissed, remanded to state court, or transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On March 5, 1993, pursuant to an order of the (transferee) District Court, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint seeking equitable relief and damages that consolidated all of the actions under the MDL caption and listed nearly 300 representative plaintiffs, including both individual and fleet owners. The Complaint alleged violations of two federal statutes; the Magnuson-Moss Act and the Lanham Trademark Act; a variety of common law and statutory claims, including negligence, fraud, breach of written and implied warranty; and violations of various state consumer statutes. The complaint sought, inter alia, an order remedying the alleged abnormally high incidence of fuel-fed fires following side-impact collisions by requiring GM to recall the trucks or pay for their repair. (JA 37, 93.) GM answered this complaint, denying all substantive allegations and raising numerous affirmative defenses. Also on March 5, 1993, plaintiffs filed a consolidated motion for nationwide class certification. The court set July 19, 1993, the hearing date on this motion. On March 30, 1993, GM moved to stay this litigation pending the outcome of the NHTSA investigation, initiated in December 1992. This motion was denied on June 4, 1993. Pursuant to a scheduling order issued by the court, discovery during the spring of 1993 focused on class certification issues. (JA1824-27.) During this discovery, GM produced more than 100,000 pages of documents from prior C/K pickup product liability lawsuits and GM's responses to NHTSA information requests. Plaintiffs also had access to the depositions and trial testimony in other cases involving the fuel tank design of C/K pickups, including the jury trial in Moseley v. GM, No. 90-V-6276 (Fulton County, Ga.). Plaintiffs consulted with their own experts to evaluate this information. In addition, depositions were taken of some GM personnel and certain named plaintiffs. Discovery on the merits of the case had been postponed until autumn 1993. Nothing in the record indicates that, as of the spring of 1993, counsel had identified expert witnesses for trial or deposed GM's engineering experts. In the midst of these proceedings, the parties began exploring a possible settlement of the litigation. These discussions intensified in June 1993, at which time face-to-face and telephonic meetings, both between the parties and among plaintiffs' counsel, took place on virtually a daily basis. On July 19, 1993, the parties reached a settlement in principle, reduced the terms to writing, and informed the district court.4 For purposes of settlement only and without prejudice to GM's substantial opposition to class certification, the named parties agreed to the certification of a settlement class of C/K pickup owners, described below. B. The Settlement Agreement In general terms, the settlement agreement provides for members of the settlement class to receive $1,000 coupons redeemable toward the purchase of any new GMC Truck or Chevrolet light duty truck. Settlement certificates are transferable with the vehicle. They are redeemable by the then current owner of the 1973-86 C/K and 1987-91 R/V light duty pickup trucks or chassis cabs at any authorized Chevrolet or GMC Truck dealer for a fifteen month period. Settlement class members do not have to trade in their current vehicle to use the certificate, and the 4 . GM reached a substantially identical agreement with counsel representing a class of C/K pickup truck purchasers who are Texas residents in Dollar v. General Motors, No. 92-1089 (71st Judicial District, Marshall, Tex.)(JA1708, 1746). That settlement was approved in November 1993, but was overturned on appeal on June 22, 1994. See Bloyed v. General Motors Corporation, Dollar et al., 881 S.W. 422 (6th App. Dist., Tex. June 22, 1994), discussed infra at VI(I). The Texas Supreme Court granted GM's Application for Writ of Error on February 16, 1995 and set the case for oral argument on March 21, 1995. certificates can be used in conjunction with GM and GMAC incentive programs. The class members can freely transfer the certificate to an immediate family member who resides with the class member. Class members can also transfer the $1000 certificate to a family member who does not reside with the class member by designating the transferee family member within sixty days, running from the date that GM mailed notice of the proposed settlement. Additionally, the $1000 certificate can be transferred with the title to the settlement class vehicle, that is, to a third party who purchases the class member's vehicle. In lieu of a $1,000 certificate, and without transferring title to the settlement class vehicle, a class member may instead request that a nontransferable $500 certificate (counterintuitively known as the "transfer certificate") be issued to any third party except a GMC dealer or its affiliates. This $500 certificate is redeemable with the purchase of a new C or K series GMC or Chevrolet full-size pickup truck or its replacement model. The $500 certificate cannot be used in conjunction with any GMC or GMAC marketing incentive, must be used on the more expensive full size models, and is subject to the same fifteen-month redemption period as the $1,000 certificates. The class member must make a notarized request to GM, and GM will mail the $500 certificate to the transferee within 14 days of its receipt of the request for transfer. Under the terms of the agreement, the approval of the settlement and corresponding entry of final judgment would have no effect upon any accrued or future claims for personal injury or death, nor would it affect the rights of settlement class members to participate in any future remedial action that might be required under the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1381 et seq. (1995).5 (JA 1750, 1763-64.) The settlement agreement before us also provides that plaintiffs' counsel would apply to the district court for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, both to be paid by GM. GM reserved the right to object to any fees or expenses it deemed to be excessive and to appeal any amount awarded by the court over its objection. (JA 1750, 1755-56.) Plaintiffs' counsel filed their fee applications on or about September 15, 1993; the fee applications remained in the files of the clerk of the district court where class members could theoretically review them, but no information about attorneys' fees other than the fact that a fee application would be made was included in the class notice. GM did not file any formal objections to the fee applications. 5 . After oral argument in this case, United States Transportation Secretary Federico Pena announced that NHTSA had settled the proceeding involving the C/K trucks at issue here without ordering a recall, finding an acceptable retrofit, or giving any compensation to the truck owners. The settlement provided that GM would contribute $51 million to general safety programs unrelated to the trucks' alleged problems. See Statement by Secretary Federico Pena on Dec. 2, 1994, Settlement Regarding DOT Investigation of General Motors C/K Pickup Trucks. C. Approval of the Settlement and Fees The district court reviewed the substantive terms of the settlement on July 12, 1993 and made the preliminary determination, in Pretrial Order No. 7, entered July 20, 1993, that the proposed settlement appeared reasonable. (JA 1828-33.) Also in pretrial order no. 7, the court "provisionally" certified the class of GM truck owners as a settlement class (i.e., for settlement purposes only) pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3); however, the court did not make findings that the requisites of Rule 23(a) or 23(b) were satisfied. (JA 1828-33.) The court approved the form of and dissemination to putative class members of the combined notice of the pendency of the action and the proposed settlement pursuant to Rules 23(c)(2) and 23(e). The class definition included all persons and entities who purchased in the United States (except for residents of the State of Texas) and were owners as of July 19, 1993 of (1) a 1973-1986 model year General Motors full-size pickup truck or chassis cab of the "C" or "K" series; or (2) a 1987-1991 model year General Motors full-size pickup truck or chassis cab of the "R" or "V" series. (JA 1828.) On August 20 and 21, 1993, GM mailed the notice to all registered owners of class vehicles (including nearly 5.7 million vehicles), and it published the full text of the notice in USA Today and The Philadelphia Inquirer on August 27, 1993. In response to the notice, over 5,200 truck owners elected to opt out of the class, and approximately 6,500 truck owners (a number which includes fleet owners who own as many as 1,000 vehicles each) objected to the settlement. The objectors' filings contained many overlapping claims. The recurring contentions were that: (1) the settlement does nothing to fix the trucks (JA 1854,55,57); (2) even with the $1,000 coupon, many owners would be unable to purchase a new truck given their high cost (with list prices from $11,000 to $33,000); (3) state and local government fleet owners would not be able to redeem all of their certificates (by buying new vehicles) within the short redemption period (fifteen months), and they might be further restricted from using the coupons by competitive bidding procurement rules; and (4) GM and class counsel colluded in a manner that compromised the interests of the class and that would preclude a finding of adequate representation. GM rejoined with voluminous material emphasizing the substantial risks plaintiffs faced not only in maintaining class treatment but also in establishing liability and damages. A settlement fairness hearing was held on October 26, 1993 during which the objectors who submitted written briefs were permitted to speak. The district court approved the settlement in a Memorandum and Order dated December 16, 1993. In that order, the court confirmed its Pretrial Order No. 7, which had provisionally certified the settlement class. Although the court still made no findings that the requisites of Rules 23(a) and (b) were met, it did set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law to justify its approval of the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate based on the nine-factor test established in Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975). The court found that the total economic value of the settlement was "between $1.98 billion and $2.18 billion." (App. 1727) Against the prospect of settlement, the court weighed each of the nine Girsh factors. It concluded that "the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation would be mammoth." (op. 6)(JA 1708, 1713) Although the settlement was reached at an early stage of the litigation, just four months after the consolidated complaint was filed, the court found that this did not weigh against the settlement because the court believed that the parties had access to "extensive discovery on the same issues of product defect that was previously conducted in the various personal injury actions that have been litigated throughout the country." (op. 8-9)(JA1715-16) The district court also found that the reaction of class members to the proposed settlement supported approval citing "the infinitesimal number of truck owners who have either objected to or sought exclusion from the settlement." (JA1715.) Noting the divided results of the personal-injury jury trials and the numerous defenses GM could raise, the court found that "a substantial risk in establishing liability" weighed in favor of approval. Similarly, the court found that "[p]erhaps the greatest weakness in the plaintiffs' case is the lack of proof of economic damages." (JA1721.) The court also addressed the objection that the settlement did not provide for a recall or a "fix," explaining that "no objector that complains that the settlement fails to retrofit the alleged defect has been able to come forth with a practical and safe modification for the trucks that has been designed, evaluated and tested." (JA1736.) On December 20, 1993, four days after approving the settlement, the district court also approved the class counsel's request for attorneys' fees in the amount of $9.5 million. Although the court did not believe at that time that it needed to review that fee award, to which GM had agreed, it subsequently, on February 2, 1994, issued an "amplified order" evaluating the award in greater detail. The court determined that the fee request was reasonable under both a lodestar analysis and the percentage-of-recovery method (see Part VII infra). (JA 1775.) D. The NHTSA Investigation While this case was under submission to this court, the NHTSA investigation continued. Over the objections of some of NHTSA's engineers who had determined that the trucks complied with relevant safety standards, on October 17, 1994, Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena announced the agency's finding that the trucks contained a safety defect creating an increased and unreasonable risk of side-impact fires. The determination was based on the allegedly enhanced risk of side-impact fires relative to Ford pickups that resulted from GM's placement of the fuel tanks outside the frame rails. GM challenged the propriety of the public meeting NHTSA planned to hold and NHTSA's authority to order a recall of vehicles that met all relevant safety standards. On December 2, 1994, Secretary Pena announced the settlement of the C/K pickup investigation wherein GM contributed over $51 million for a variety of safety programs unrelated to the pickups, and admitted no liability.6 E. Standard of Review Each of the issues presented here is reviewable for abuse of discretion. See Bryan v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 494 F.2d 799 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 900 (1974) (approval of proposed class action settlement); In re School Asbestos Litig., 921 F.2d 1338, 1341 (3d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 976 (1991) (class certification); Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 540 F.2d 102, 115 (3d Cir. 1976) (award of reasonable attorney's fees); Marrogquin-Manriquez v. INS, 699 F.2d 129, 134 (3d Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1259 (1984) (scope of discovery). An appellate court may find an abuse of discretion where the "district court's decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law or an improper application of law to fact." International Union, UAW v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 820 F.2d 91, 95 (3d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 921 (1991). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, although 6 . See note 5 supra. there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court, based on the entire evidence, concludes with firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Oberti v. Board. of Ed. of Borough of Clementon Sch. Dist., 995 F.2d 1204, 1220 (3d Cir. 1993). II. ANATOMY OF THE CLASS CLAIMS The consolidated class complaint filed on behalf of the nationwide class of GM truck owners (except those from Texas) alleged violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 2310(d)(1) (1995); and the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a) (1995); and a variety of state common law and statutory claims, including strict liability in tort for selling a dangerously defective product; negligent design; negligent misrepresentation; fraud (based on defendants' alleged course of conduct in the advertising, promotion, and sale of the GM pickups intentionally concealing material facts about a dangerous latent defect); breach of warranty, including written (from vehicle warranties), express (from public representations by GM), implied (warranties of merchantability) and statutory warranties; and finally violations of various state consumer protection statutes. (JA37). The case did not involve any pickup trucks that had actually experienced fuel tank fires caused by side-impact collisions. Moreover, personal injury or death claims were expressly omitted from the complaint as well as from the settlement -- class members remain free to pursue such claims if any should accrue. The aggregated treatment of these claims was potentially complicated by the differences in underlying facts. The trucks at issue had nineteen different fuel tank systems; proof might thus be required for each design on relevant issues. Furthermore, unlike the federal securities laws where there is a presumption of reliance on a material misrepresentation, see Basic v. Levinson, 108 S. Ct. 978 (1988), plaintiffs would likely have had to prove individual reliance on the allegedly misleading materials under the various state laws applicable to most of these claims. More fundamentally, the complaint itself invoked state laws that implicated different legal standards on, for example, the warranty claims (the laws contain various privity requirements or the need for an allegedly defective product to fail in service before a warranty claim can be sustained), negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and strict products liability. The state laws implicated by the filing of the nationwide class action also differed on such issues as statutes of limitations, whether pickup trucks are "consumer products;" the application of durational limits on implied warranties; the requirement of reliance to recover for fraud, misrepresentation, and warranty claims; whether intent is a required element of negligent misrepresentation claims; whether comparative fault is a defense; and the relevant test for plaintiffs' design defect claims. III. RULE 23 - RELEVANT FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES Before turning to the precise questions at issue on this appeal, it is important that we consider the several basic purposes served by class actions in our contemporary, complex litigation-laden legal system. One of the paramount values in this system is efficiency. Class certification enables courts to treat common claims together, obviating the need for repeated adjudications of the same issues. See Vol. 1 HERBERT NEWBERG & ALBA CONTE, NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 1.06 (Third Ed. 1992); General Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 149 (1982). The Supreme Court has articulated other important objectives served by class actions. Class actions achieve "the protection of the defendant from inconsistent obligations, the protection of the interests of absentees, the provision of a convenient and economical means for disposing of similar lawsuits, and the facilitation of the spreading of litigation costs among numerous litigants with similar claims." United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 pinpoint (1980). The Court has explained the significance of the last goal as an evolutionary response to the existence of injuries unremedied by the regulatory action of government. Where it is not economically feasible to obtain relief within the traditional framework of a multiplicity of small individual suits for damages, aggrieved persons may be without any effective redress unless they may employ the class-action device. Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980); see also Vol 1 NEWBERG & CONTE § 1.06 at 1-19. Cost spreading can also enhance the means for private attorney general enforcement and the resulting deterrence of wrongdoing. Id. § 1.06 at 1-18 to 1-20. The law favors settlement, particularly in class actions and other complex cases where substantial judicial resources can be conserved by avoiding formal litigation. See NEWBERG & CONTE § 11.41 at 11-85 (citing cases); Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir. 1977); Van Brankhorst v. Safeco Corp., 529 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1976). The parties may also gain significantly from avoiding the costs and risks of a lengthy and complex trial. See First Com. Corp. of Boston Customer Accts Litig., 119 F.R.D. 301, 306-07 (D. Mass. 1987). These economic gains multiply when settlement also avoids the costs of litigating class status -- often a complex litigation within itself. Furthermore, a settlement may represent the best method of distributing damage awards to injured plaintiffs, especially where litigation would delay and consume the available resources and where piecemeal settlement could result, in the Rule 23(b)(1)(B) limited fund context, in a sub-optimal distribution of the damage awards. See, e.g., In re Dennis Greenman Securities Litig., 829 F.2d 1539, 1542 (11th Cir. 1987). Thus, courts should favor the use of devices that tend to foster negotiated solutions to these actions. Prima facie, this would include settlement classes. True, it was once thought that mass tort actions were ordinarily not appropriate for class treatment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Advisory Committee's note, subdivision (b)(3), 39 F.R.D. 69, 103 (1966). It has also been argued that mass tort cases strain the boundaries of Rule 23. See Bruce H. Nielson, Was the 1966 Advisory Committee Right?: Suggested Revisions of Rule 23 to Allow More Frequent Use of Class Actions in Mass Tort Litigation, 25 HARV. J. LEGIS. 461 (1988) (suggesting necessity of rule revisions to accommodate class action treatment of mass torts). However, the applicability of Rule 23 to mass tort cases has become commonplace, and the use of the class action device, specifically the (b)(3) class, has created some of the largest and most innovative settlements in these contexts. Prominent examples include the recent $4.2 billion settlement of the breast implant litigation. See In re Silicone Gel Breast Implant Prods. Liability Litig., 1994 WL 578353 (N.D. Ala. 1994). Despite the potential benefits of class actions, there remains an overarching concern -- that absentees' interests are being resolved and quite possibly bound by the operation of res judicata even though most of the plaintiffs are not the real parties to the suit. The protection of the absentees' due process rights depends in part on the extent the named plaintiffs are adequately interested to monitor the attorneys (who are, of course, presumed motivated to achieve maximum results by the prospect of substantial fees), and also on the extent that the class representatives have interests that are sufficiently aligned with the absentees to assure that the monitoring serves the interests of the class as a whole. In addition, the court plays the important role of protector of the absentees' interests, in a sort of fiduciary capacity, by approving appropriate representative plaintiffs and class counsel. Another problem is that class actions create the opportunity for a kind of legalized blackmail: a greedy and unscrupulous plaintiff might use the threat of a large class action, which can be costly to the defendant, to extract a settlement far in excess of the individual claims' actual worth. Because absentees are not parties to the action in any real sense, and probably would not have brought their claims individually, see Mars Steel v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust, 834 F.2d 677, 678 (7th Cir. 1987), attorneys or plaintiffs can abuse the suit nominally brought in the absentees' names. As one court has noted, "[t]his fundamental departure from the traditional pattern in Anglo-American litigation generates a host of problems . . . ." Id. The drafters designed the procedural requirements of Rule 23, especially the requisites of subsection (a), so that the court can assure, to the greatest extent possible, that the actions are prosecuted on behalf of the actual class members in a way that makes it fair to bind their interests. The rule thus represents a measured response to the issues of how the due process rights of absentee interests can be protected and how absentees' represented status can be reconciled with a litigation system premised on traditional bipolar litigation. Moreover, the requirement in Rule 23(c) that the court decide certification motions "as soon as practicable," see note 1 supra, aims to reduce even further the possibility that a party could use the ill-founded threat of a class action to control negotiations or the possibility that absentees' interests could be unfairly bound. Hence, the procedural formalities of certification are important even if the case appears to be headed for settlement rather than litigation. This expanded role of the court in class actions (relative to conventional bipolar litigation) continues even after certification. While the parties in a normal suit do not ordinarily require a judge's approval to settle the action, class action parties do. Rule 23(e) provides: "A class action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the court directs." FED. R. CIV. P. 23(E). Courts and commentators have interpreted this rule to require courts to "independently and objectively analyze the evidence and circumstances before it in order to determine whether the settlement is in the best interest of those whose claims will be extinguished." 2 NEWBERG & CONTE § 11.41 at 11-88 to 11-89. "Under Rule 23(e) the district court acts as a fiduciary who must serve as a guardian of the rights of absent class members. . . . [T]he court cannot accept a settlement that the proponents have not shown to be fair, reasonable and adequate." Grunin v. International House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114, 123 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864 (1975); Malchman v. Davis, 706 F.2d 426, 433 (2d Cir. 1983); Sala v. National RR Passenger Corp., 721 F. Supp. 80 (E.D. Pa. 1989); see also Piambino v. Bailey, 610 F.2d 1306 (5th Cir.), cert denied, 449 U.S. 1011 (1980). Before sending notice of the settlement to the class, the court will usually approve the settlement preliminarily. This preliminary determination establishes an initial presumption of fairness when the court finds that: (1) the negotiations occurred at arm's length; (2) there was sufficient discovery; (3) the proponents of the settlement are experienced in similar litigation; and (4) only a small fraction of the class objected. See 2 NEWBERG & CONTE § 11.41 at 11-91. As noted above, this court has adopted a nine-factor test to help district courts structure their final decisions to approve settlements as fair, reasonable, and adequate as required by Rule 23(e). See Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153, 157 (3d Cir. 1975). Those factors are: (1) the complexity and duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing damages; (6) the risks of maintaining a class action; (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement in light of the best recovery; and (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement in light of all the attendant risks of litigation. Id. The proponents of the settlement bear the burden of proving that these factors weigh in favor of approval. See GM Interchange, 594 F.2d 1106, 1126 n.30 7th Cir. 1979); Holden v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 665 F. Supp. 1398, 1407 (D. Minn. 1987); MCL 2d §30.44. The findings required by the Girsh test are factual, see Malchman v. Davis, 706 F.2d at 434; Plummer v. Chemical Bank, 668 F.2d 564, 659 (2d Cir. 1982), which will be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous, Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 73 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 818 (1983); In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 643 F.2d 195, 207 (5th Cir. 1981). IV. SETTLEMENT CLASSES This appeal challenges (among other things) the district court's class certification order. Before we may address the propriety of the court's order we must first decide whether it is ever proper to certify a class for settlement purposes only. We therefore begin our analysis with a closer look at how settlement classes operate. A. Nature of the Device As we have explained above, a settlement class is a device whereby the court postpones the formal certification procedure until the parties have successfully negotiated a settlement, thus allowing a defendant to explore settlement without conceding any of its arguments against certification. Despite the directive of Rule 23(c) that courts certify actions as soon as practicable, when a class action has been filed before the settlement has been arrived at courts will often delay the certification determination during the pendency of settlement discussions. If the settlement negotiations succeed, courts will certify the class for settlement purposes only and send a combined notice of class pendency and settlements to the class members. Thus, by the time the court considers certification, the defendant has essentially stipulated to the existence of the class requirements since it now has an interest in binding an entire class with its proffered settlement. By specifying certification for settlement purposes only, however, the court preserves the defendant's ability to contest certification should the settlement fall apart. Because the court indulges the assumption of the class's existence only until a settlement is reached or the parties abandon the negotiations, settlement classes are also sometimes referred to as temporary or provisional classes. Sometimes the specification may also be seen as assuming that the class may only meet the requirements of Rule 23 if the action is settled, and that certification may in fact be inappropriate if the action will actually be litigated. In any event, notwithstanding that there is an absence of clear textual authorization for settlement classes, many courts have indulged the stipulations of parties by establishing temporary classes for settlement purposes only. See, e.g., Mars Steel v. Continental Illinois Nat'l Bk. & Trust, 834 F.2d 677 (7th Cir. 1987); Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 818 (1983); In re A.H. Robins Co., 880 F.2d 709, 738-39 (4th Cir. 1989); In re Dennis Greeman Sec. Litig., 829 F.2d 1539, 1543 (11th Cir. 1978); Plummer v. Chemical Bank, 668 F.2d 564 (2d Cir. 1982); In re Beef Industry Antitrust Litig., 607 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1979); Malchman v. Davis, 706 F.2d 427, 433-34 (2d Cir. 1983); In re Taxable Mun. Bond Sec. Litig., 1994 WL 643142 (E.D. La. Nov. 15, 1994); In re Silicone Gel Breast Implant Prod. Liab. Litig., 1994 WL 578353 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 1, 1994); In re First Commodity Corp. of Boston, 119 F.R.D. 301, 306-08 (D. Mass. 1987); In re Bendectin, 102 F.R.D. 239, 240 (S.D. Oh. 1984), rev'd on other grounds, 749 F.2d 300 (6th Cir. 1984); In re Mid-Atlantic Toyota Anti-trust Litig., 564 F.Supp. 1379, 1388-90 (D. Md. 1983); In re Chicken Antitrust Litig., 560 F.Supp. 957, 960 (N.D. Ga. 1980). There has been a great deal of commentary, both critical7 and laudatory,8 of the use of these "settlement classes." And some courts have criticized these accommodations 7 . See, e.g., John C. Coffee, Jr., The Corruption of the Class Action, WALL ST. J. Sept. 7, 1994, at A15. 8 . 2 Newberg & Conte § 11.27 (First) § 1.46; Roger H. Transgrud, Joinder Alternatives in Mass Tort Litigation, 70 CORNELL L. REV. 779 (1985); Bruce H. Nielson, Was the 1966 Advisory Committee Right?: Suggested Revisions of Rule 23 to Allow More Frequent Use of Class Actions in Mass Tort Litigation, 25 HARV. J. LEGIS. 461, 480 of the negotiating parties and expressed their ambivalence while continuing nonetheless to use them. See, e.g., Mars Steel, 834 F.2d 677 (7th Cir. 1987) (describing considerable dangers of settlement classes but ultimately upholding the settlement). Before we interpret the dictates of Rule 23 with respect to settlement classes, it will be useful to survey both the criticism and the praise. B. Perceived Problems of Settlement Classes A number of commentators, particularly the authors of the first edition of the Manual for Complex Litigation, have voiced serious concerns about settlement classes. These criticisms have focused on the fact that Rule 23, a carefully constructed scheme intended to protect the rights of absentees that necessarily relies on active judicial participation to protect those interests, does not authorize a separate category of class certification that would permit a dilution of or dispense with the subsection (a) criteria. § 1.46; see also Mars Steel v. Continental Ill. Nat'l Bank & Trust, 834 F.2d 677, 680 (7th Cir. 1987); In re Baldwin United, 105 F.R.D. 475 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). Other criticisms focus on the potential prejudice to the parties and the institutional threat posed to the court. See, e.g., Coffee, supra note 10. Rule 23 does not in terms authorize the deferral of class certification pending settlement discussions. Indeed, Rule 23(c) provides: "As soon as practicable after the commencement of an action brought as a class action, the court shall determine by order whether it is to be so maintained." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) (emphasis supplied). Deliberately delaying a class certification determination so that settlement discussions can proceed clearly does not represent an effort to resolve the issue "as soon as practicable." As Judge Posner has noted, "[i]t is hard to see why the propriety of maintaining the suit as a class action could not 'practicably' have been determined much earlier. And, common though the practice of deferring class certification while settlement negotiations are going on is, it not only jostles uneasily with the language of Rule 23(c)(1) but also creates practical problems." Mars Steel, 834 F.2d at 680. The danger here is that the court cannot properly discharge its duty to protect the interests of the absentees during the disposition of the action. Because the class has not yet been defined, the court lacks the information necessary to determine the identity of the absentees and the likely extent of liability, damages, and expenses of preparing for trial. See MCL 2d § 30.45 at 243 ("No one may know how many members are in the class, how large their potential claims are, what the strengths and weaknesses of the parties' positions are, or how much the class will benefit under the settlement."); In re Baldwin United, 105 F.R.D. 475, 481 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). Moreover, the court performs its role as supervisor/protector without the benefit of a full adversarial briefing on the certification issues. With less information about the class, the judge cannot as effectively monitor for collusion, individual settlements, buy-offs (where some individuals use the class action device to benefit themselves at the expense of absentees), and other abuses. See In re Beef Indus. Antitrust Litig., 607 F.2d at 174. For example, if the court fails to define the class before settlement negotiations commence, then during the settlement approval phase the judge will have greater difficulty detecting if the parties improperly manipulated the scope of the class in order to buy the defendant's acquiescence. Settlement classes also make it more difficult for a court to evaluate the settlement by depriving the judge of the customary structural devices of Rule 23 and the presumptions of propriety that they generate. Ordinarily, a court relies on class status, particularly the adequacy of representation required to maintain it, to infer that the settlement was the product of arm's length negotiations. Cf. Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 74 (2d Cir. 1983) (noting protracted nature of negotiations in approving settlement); City of Detroit v. Grinnell, 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974) (same); In re Baldwin-United, 105 F.R.D. 475, 482 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (same). Where the court has not yet certified a class or named its representative or counsel, this assumption is questionable. In effect, settlement classes can, depending how they are used, evade the processes intended to protect the rights of absentees. Indeed, the draft of the MCL (Third), although considerably more receptive to settlement classes than the earlier editions of the Manual, explains that "[t]he problem presented by these requests is not the lack of sufficient information and scrutiny, but rather the possibility that fiduciary responsibilities of class counsel or class representatives may have been compromised." MCL (Third) (draft) at 193. Even some courts successfully using these devices to achieve settlements apparently recognize these dangers since they certify these actions more cautiously than ordinary classes. See, e.g., Ace Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Crane Co., 453 F.2d 30, 33 (3d Cir. 1971) (court must be doubly careful where negotiation occurs before certification and designation of a class counsel); In re Beef Antitrust Litig., 607 F.2d 167, 176-77 (5th Cir. 1979) (examining though ultimately rejecting the charge that collusion precluded the certification of the settlement class); Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655, 664-66 (7th Cir. 1981) (requiring a higher showing of fairness where settlement negotiated prior to certification); Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 1982) (judge made findings about discovery and counsel). In particular, settlement classes create especially lucrative opportunities for putative class attorneys to generate fees for themselves without any effective monitoring by class members who have not yet been apprised of the pendency of the action. Moreover, because the court does not appoint a class counsel until the case is certified, attorneys jockeying for position might attempt to cut a deal with the defendants by underselling the plaintiffs' claims relative to other attorneys.9 Unauthorized settlement negotiations occurring before the certification determination thus "create the possibility of negotiation from a position of weakness by the attorney who purports to represent the class." GM Interchange Litigation, 594 F.2d 1106, 1125 (7th Cir. 1979). Pre-certification negotiations also hamper a court's ability to review the true value of the settlement or the legal services after the fact. See supra at 36. In addition, unauthorized negotiations also result in denying other plaintiffs' counsel information that is necessary for them to make an effective evaluation of the fairness of any settlement that results. See GM Interchange, 594 F.2d at 1125. Framed as an issue of Rule 23(a) requisites, these considerations implicate adequacy of representation concerns: "[a]rguments in opposition to settlement classes have merit when they are addressed to the problem of inadequate representation or possible collusion among the named plaintiffs and some or all defendants." In re Baldwin-United Corp., 105 F.R.D. 475, 480 9 . These sorts of dynamics have led some critics to accuse class action attorneys of ethical violations. While we emphasize that counsel here committed no such violations, we do not preclude the possibility that these violations could occur. (S.D.N.Y. 1984). Another court has warned that the "danger of a premature, even a collusive, settlement [is] increased when as in this case the status of the action as a class action is not determined until a settlement has been negotiated, with all the momentum that a settlement agreement generates . . . ."; Mars Steel, 834 F.2d at 680; see also Malchman, 706 F.2d at 433 (recognizing special potential for collusion or undue pressure by defendants in settlement negotiations); Weinberger, 698 F.2d at 73 (requiring a higher showing of fairness to accommodate greater potential for improper settlement). Settlement classes, which constitute ad hoc adjustments to the carefully designed class action framework constructed by Rule 23, lack the regulatory mechanisms that ordinarily check this improper behavior: "There is in fact little or no individual client consultation and no judicial oversight of a hidden process of wheeling and dealing to maximize overall recovery and fees for hundreds and thousands of massed cases." In re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litigation, 129 B.R. 710, 802 (E & S.D.N.Y. 1991) (discussing the ramifications of class treatment of mass torts). In addition to these procedural problems (and the problems created for a judge trying to evaluate both class status and the adequacy of a class settlement simultaneously) the earlier achievement of settlement through the use of a settlement class also can lead to a settlement that may provide inadequate consideration in exchange for the release of the class's claims. With early settlement, both parties have less information on the merits. That is, they have less information on the membership of the class, on the size of potential claims, on whether the settlement purports to resolve class or individual claims, on the strengths and weaknesses of the case, and on how class members will benefit from the settlement. See MCL 2d § 30.45 at 243-44; 2 NEWBERG & CONTE § 11.09 at 11-13. Without the benefit of more extensive discovery, both sides may underestimate the strength of the plaintiffs' claims. Turning to the question of due process rights, we note that class members may, as a result of these information deficiencies, not be in a fair position at this early stage to evaluate whether or not the settlement represents a superior alternative to litigating. Perhaps more troubling in light of the reality that absentees tend to lack a real understanding of the actions supposedly pursued in their names is that, "where notice of the class action is . . . sent simultaneously with the notice of the settlement itself, [the settlement class paradigm], the class members are presented with what looks like a fait accompli." Mars Steel, 834 F.2d at 680-81. Thus, even if they have enough information to conclude the settlement is insufficient and unsatisfactory, see In re Beef Antitrust Litig., 607 F.2d 167, 173 n.4 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 905 (1981), the mere presentation of the settlement notice with the class notice may pressure even skeptical class members to accept the settlement out of the belief that, unless they are willing to litigate their claims individually -- often economically infeasible -- they really have no choice. In a different vein, a number of cases have also criticized settlement classes on the grounds that they create an opportunity for "one-way intervention," allowing putative class members to wait to see whether they think the settlement is favorable before deciding whether they want to be bound by it. See McDonald v. Chicago Milwaukee Corp., 565 F.2d 416, 420 (7th Cir. 1977); Watkins v. Blinzinger, 789 F.2d 474, 475 n.3 (7th Cir. 1986) ("A deferred ruling [on certification] converts the class action to an opportunity for one-way intervention, which Rule 23 is designed to avoid. . . ."); Premier Electrical Constr. Co. v. National Electrical Contractors Ass'n, Inc., 814 F.2d 358, 363 (7th Cir. 1987) (criticizing delay of certification). Because class members have the opportunity to wait until the outcome is known (i.e., the settlement's terms are determined) to decide whether they want to be bound by the result, courts and defendants are exposed to the same potential for multiple lawsuits that class actions are designed to avoid, and the supposed advantages of settlement classes are largely eroded. Perhaps more troubling, the possibility of pre- certification negotiation and settlement may facilitate the filing of strike suits. Since settlement classes can involve a settlement achieved either before or after the filing of class claims, recognition of the settlement class device allows plaintiffs to file as class actions cases that counsel never intended to have certified, but instead only to settle the claims individually. Mars Steel, 834 F.2d 677, 681 (7th Cir. 1984) ("[Plaintiffs will be tempted to add class claims in order to intimidate the defendant, then delete them by way of compromise."). Knowing that they would not face judicial scrutiny if they settle before certification, plaintiffs' lawyers face no deterrent from attempting to extract larger settlements by threatening class litigation than they could with the cases filed individually. In many respects then, the failings of settlement classes are a function of the dearth of information available to judges attempting to scrutinize the settlements in accordance with their Rule 23(e) duties. Because the issue of certification is never actively contested, the judge never receives the benefit of the adversarial process that provides the information needed to review propriety of the class and the adequacy of settlement. This problem is exacerbated where the parties agree on a settlement of the case before the class action is filed, since a motion for certification and settlement are presented simultaneously. Last, but by no means least, the use of settlement classes also risks transforming the courts into mediation forums. See Coffee, supra note 9 at A15. Cases could be filed without any expectation or intention of litigation, with the foreknowledge that the natural hydraulic pressure for settlement may in fact lead to a class settlement, especially given the incentive a defendant has to bind as many potential claimants as possible with an approved class settlement. Courts may approve these class settlements even if the case is highly inappropriate for class treatment, since judges confronting the reality of already over-taxed judicial resources, see Proposed Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts (March 1995) at 9-12, may feel constrained to dispose of such onerous litigation through the settlement class device. The losers in this type of scenario are not only inadequately represented class members but also the federal courts as an institution, because their resources are further sapped by entertaining cases that arguably do not belong there.10 This increased burden will be especially problematic if the standards for certification are relaxed for settlement classes; as this appeal demonstrates, proceedings attendant to settlement class certification can consume considerable federal judicial time. C. Arguments Favoring Settlement Classes Although settlement classes are vulnerable to potent criticisms, some important dynamics militate in favor of a 10 . Because the parties do not come before the court until the action has settled, some courts have even expressed concern that such cases do not present a case or controversy for Article III purposes. Cf. Carlough v. Amchem Products, Inc., 834 F. Supp. 1437, 1462-67 (E.D. Pa. 1993). judge's delaying or even substantially avoiding class certification determinations. Because certification so dramatically increases the potential value of the suit to the plaintiffs and their attorneys as well as the potential liability of the defendant, the parties will frequently contest certification vigorously. As a result, a defendant considering a settlement may resist agreeing to class certification because, if the settlement negotiations should fail, it would be left exposed to major litigation. See In re Beef Indus. Antitrust Litig., 607 F.2d 167, 177-78 (5th Cir. 1979) ("[A blanket rule against settlement classes] may render it virtually impossible for the parties to compromise class issues and reach a proposed class settlement before a class certification . . . ."); In re Baldwin United, 105 F.R.D. 475 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). In mass tort cases, in particular, use of a settlement class can help overcome certain elements of these actions that otherwise can considerably complicate efforts to settle. These hurdles include "the large number of individual plaintiffs and lawyers; . . . the existence of unfiled claims by putative plaintiffs; and . . . the inability of any single plaintiff to offer the settling defendant reliable indemnity protection . . . ." Transgrud, 70 CORNELL L. REV. at 835. By using the courts to overcome some of the collective action problems particularly acute in mass tort cases, the settlement class device can make settlement feasible. The use of settlement classes can thus enable both parties to realize substantial savings in litigation expenses by compromising the action before formal certification. See 2 NEWBERG & CONTE § 11.09 at 11-13. Through settlement class certification, courts have fostered settlement of some very large, complex cases that might otherwise never have yielded deserving plaintiffs any substantial renumeration. Settlement classes also increase the number of actions that are amenable to settlement by increasing the rewards of a negotiated solution, in at least four ways. First, the prospect of class certification increases a defendant's incentive to settle because the settlement would then bind the class members and prevent further suits against the defendant. Second, settlement classes may reduce litigation costs by allowing defendants to stipulate to class certification without forfeiting any of their legal arguments against certification should the negotiations fail. Third, because the payment of settlement proceeds, even relatively small amounts, may palliate class members, settlement can reduce differences among class members, and thus make class certification more likely, increasing the value of settlement to the defendant, since a larger number of potential claims can thus be resolved. Fourth, the use of settlement classes reduces the probability of a successful subsequent challenge to the class-wide settlement. By treating the class as valid pending settlement, a temporary class facilitates notice to those persons whom the court might consider part of the class. The expanded notice afforded by access to the customary class action notification process protects both the absentees and the defendants by eliminating negotiations between the defendants and the named plaintiffs with respect to the class definition that could leave the defendant vulnerable to additional suits by absentees whose interests, a court later determines, were not adequately served or protected. 2 NEWBERG & CONTE § 11.27 at 11-40 (citing Midland Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Sellers, 101 B.R. 921 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1989)). Increasing the certainty that the settlement will be upheld augments the value of settling to the defendant and consequently the amount defendants will be willing to pay. Thus, delaying certification, in contravention of a strict reading of Rule 23, encourages settlement, an important judicial policy, by increasing the prospective gains to the defendant (and thus potentially to the plaintiffs as well) from exploring a negotiated solution. Moreover, critics of settlement classes may underestimate the safeguards that still inhere. Although courts are often certifying settlement classes with sub-optimal amounts of information, and without the full benefit of the processes meant to protect the absentees' interests, the provisional certification of a settlement class does not finally determine the absentees' rights. When the simultaneous notice of the class and the settlement is distributed to the proposed class, objecting class members can still challenge the class on commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, superiority, and predominance grounds -- they are not limited to objections based strictly on the settlement's terms. 2 NEWBERG & CONTE §11.27 at 11-40 (citing Midland Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Sellers, 101 B.R. at 921). Furthermore, the view that, in settlement class cases, the court lacks the information necessary to fufill its role as protector of the absentees, may reflect an assumption that the court's approval always comes early in the case. See 2 NEWBERG & CONTE § 11.27 at 11-43 to 11-44. While it often does, the certification decision is sometimes made later in the case, when the parties have presumably developed the merits more fully (in discovery or in the course of wrangling over the settlement terms) and when prior governmental procedures or investigations might have also yielded helpful information. Id. Whatever the timing of the certification ruling, the judge has the duty of passing on the fairness and adequacy of the settlement under Rule 23(e) and also of determining whether the class meets the Rule's requisites under 23(a).11 Whether or not the court certifies the class before settlement discussions, these duties are the same. 2 NEWBERG & CONTE § 11.27, at 11-46. Although a judge cannot presume that the putative class counsel actively represented the absentees' interests, the court 11 . We are somewhat dubious of the court's ability to discharge its duties completely under these circumstances. See Part IVE infra. can still monitor the negotiation process itself to assure that both counsel and the settlement adequately vindicate the absentees' interests. Thus, there is no reason to inflexibly limit the use of settlement classes to any specified categories of cases (for example, those cases with few objectors, those which do not involve partial settlements,12 or those which do not involve an expanded class). Even apparently troublesome litigation activity, such as expanding the class just before settlement approval at the defendant's request, is no more free from judicial scrutiny in a settlement class context than it would be otherwise. The court still must give notice to the now- expanded class and satisfy itself that the requisites of class certification are met. Id. at 11-49. Since the party advocating certification bears the burden of proving appropriateness of class treatment, David v. Romney, 490 F.2d 1360 (3d Cir. 1974), where the procedural posture is such that the court lacks adequate information to make those determinations, it can and should withhold the relevant approvals. 2 NEWBERG & CONTE § 11.27 at 11-46. But even if the use of settlement classes did reduce a judge's capacity to safeguard the class's interests, it does not necessarily impair the ability of absentees to protect their own 12 . MCL 2d expressed concern about partial settlements (settlements only as to certain plaintiffs or certain defendants) since "[m]embers of the settlement class will almost certainly find it difficult to understand their position in the litigation." MCL 2d § 30.45. interests. Individual class members retain the right to opt out of the class and settlement, preserving the right to pursue their own litigation. See Premier Elec. Const. Co. v. N.E.C.A., Inc., 814 F.2d 358 (7th Cir. 1987) (criticizing settlement classes because they create opportunities for one-way intervention). In fact, the use of the settlement class in some sense enhances plaintiffs' right to opt out. Since the plaintiff is offered the opportunity to opt out of the class simultaneously with the opportunity to accept or reject the settlement offer, which is supposed to be accompanied by all information on settlement, the plaintiff knows exactly what result he or she sacrifices when opting out. See 2 NEWBERG & CONTE § 11.27 at 11-51. See In re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, 607 F.2d at 174. In sum, settlement classes clearly offer substantial benefits. However, the very flexibility required to achieve these gains strains the bounds of Rule 23 and comes at the expense of some of the protections the Rule-writers intended to construct. As Judge Schwarzer has explained: one way to see [the settlement class] is as a commendable example of the law's adaptability to meet the needs of the time -- in the best tradition of the Anglo-American common law. But another interpretation might be that it is an unprincipled subversion of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. True, if it is a subversion, it is done with good intentions to help courts cope with burgeoning dockets, to enable claimants at the end of the line of litigants to recover compensation, and to allow defendants to manage the staggering liabilities many face. But as experience seems to show, good intentions are not always enough to ensure that all relevant private and public interests are protected. The siren song of Rule 23 can lead lawyers, parties and courts into rough waters where their ethical compass offers only uncertain guidance. William W. Schwarzer, Settlement of Mass Tort Class Actions: Order Out of Chaos, CORNELL L. REV. (forthcoming). D. Are Settlement Classes Cognizable Under Rule 23? Although not specifically authorized by Rule 23, settlement classes are not specifically precluded by it either; indeed, Judge Brieant has read subsection (d), giving the court power to manage the class action, as authorizing the creation of "tentative", "provisional", or "conditional" classes through its grant of power to modify or decertify classes as necessary. See, e.g., In re Baldwin-United Corp., 105 F.R.D. 475, 478-79 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). And because of the broad grant of authority in Rule 23(d), at least one commentator has noted that the validity of temporary settlement classes is usually not questioned. 2 NEWBERG & CONTE §11.22 at 11-31. Courts apparently share this confidence. Indeed, one court believed that "[i]t is clear that the Court may provisionally certify the Class for settlement purposes." South Carolina Nat'l Bank v. Stone, 749 F.Supp. 1419, (D.S.C. 1990). We believe that the "provisional"13 or "conditional"14 conception of the settlement class device finds at least a colorable textual basis in the Rule. Rule 23(d) enables a court to certify a class, if it complies with its duty to assure that the class meets the rule's requisites by making appropriate Rule 23 findings (see Part IV(E) infra). Some courts appear to have concluded that the built-in flexibility of the Rule, which enables the court to revisit the requisites and modify or decertify the class should its nature change dramatically during the negotiation process, renders it acceptable to determine class status after settlement and thus avoid scrutinizing and adjudicating class status at an earlier stage when the outcome is unknown. See, e.g., In re Baldwin-United, 105 F.R.D. at 483; In re Beef Antitrust Litig., 607 F.2d at 177 ("[T]he Court finds that a conditional class should be certified for the purpose of considering the proposed settlements.") Alternatively, some courts have conceived of settlement classes as a "temporary assumption" by the court to facilitate settlement. See Mars Steel, 834 F.2d at 680; In re Beef Indust. 13 . The terms "tentative" and "provisional" appear to be used interchangeably. 14 . "Conditional" is actually a term that can be properly applied to all class actions, even those that are certified in the normal process. Under Rule 23(c)(1), the court retains the authority to re-define or decertify the class until the entry of final judgment on the merits. This capacity renders all certification orders conditional until the entry of judgment. See MCL 2d § 30.18. Antitrust Litig., 607 F.2d at 177; 2 NEWBERG & CONTE § 11.27 at 11- 50. The arguments of the late Herbert Newberg, one of the leading advocates of settlement classes, reflect an assumption that the Rule 23 determinations are merely postponed, not eliminated: On analysis, however, it would appear that this argument [that courts using settlement classes circumvent the need to test the propriety of the class action according to the specific criteria of Rule 23] may be rebutted by perceiving the temporary settlement class as nothing more than a tentative assumption indulged in by the court . . . . The actual class ruling is deferred in these circumstances until after hearing on the settlement approval . . . . At that time, the court in fact applies the class action requirements to determine whether the action should be maintained as a class action . . . . 2 NEWBERG & CONTE § 11.27 at 11-50.15 Newberg posits, therefore, that the temporary assumption conception of the settlement needs no special authorization since the court eventually follows the ordinary certification process, only deferring it until the settlement approval stage. Courts have also relied on the more general policies of Rule 23 -- promoting justice and realizing judicial efficiencies -- to justify this arguable departure from the rule. 15 . See also In re Mid-Atlantic Toyota Antitrust Litig., 564 F. Supp. 1379, 1388 n.13 (D. Md. 1983) ("Completely ancillary to the proposed settlement, [a temporary settlement class] lasts only as long as the period betwen the preliminary approval of the settlement and the court's final determination on the settlement. In effect, a temporary settlement class serves only as a procedural vehicle for providing notice to putative members of a proposed class . . . ."). [T]he hallmark of Rule 23 is flexibility . . . . Temporary settlement classes have proved to be quite useful in resolving major class action disputes. While their use may still be controversial, most Courts have recognized their utility and have authorized the parties to compromise their differences, including class action issues through this means. Weinberger, 698 F.2d at 72-73. One commentator found implicit authorization for settlement classes under a settlement-oriented interpetation of Rule 23: [Rule 23] provides that a court may certify a common question class action when it will prove "superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy." A judicially supervised and approved class action settlement, like a judicially supervised trial, is a means of hearing and determining judicially, in other words "adjudicating," the value of claims arising from a mass tort. As a result, if conditional certification of the case as a common question class action for settlement purposes would enhance the prospects for a group settlement, then Rule 23 authorizes certification. Roger H. Transgrud, Joinder Alternatives in Mass Tort Litig., 70 CORNELL L. REV. 779, 835 (1985) (footnotes ommited). It is noteworthy that resistance to more flexible applications of Rule 23 has diminished over time. See In re Taxable Mun. Bond Secur. Litig., 1994 WL 643143, *4 (E.D. La. 1994) (commenting upon this trend). The evolution of the reception accorded settlement classes has manifested itself in the successive versions of the Manual for Complex Litigation. The first edition of the Manual criticized the initiation of settlement negotiations before certification, and discouraged all such negotiations. See MCL 1st § 1.46. The second edition recognizes the potential benefits of settlement classes but still cautioned that "the court should be wary of presenting the settlement to the class." MCL §30.45 at 243. The (draft) third version acknowledges that "[s]ettlement classes offer a commonly used vehicle for the settlement of complex litigation" and aims only to supervise rather than discourage their use. See MCL § 30.45 at 192. A survey of the caselaw confirms the impression that resistance to settlement classes has diminished: few cases since the late 1970's and early 1980's even bother to squarely address the propriety of settlement classes. Moreover, no court of appeals that has had the opportunity to comment on the propriety of settlement classes has held that they constitute a per se violation of Rule 23. See, e.g., Ace Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Crane Co., 453 F.2d 30, 33 (3d Cir. 1971) (finding no prohibition but granting absentees standing to appeal settlement approval); Marshall v. Holiday Magic, Inc., 550 F.2d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 1977) (describing how court approved combined notice of the pendency of the class and the terms of the proposed settlement); In re Beef Antitrust Litig., 607 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1979); Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 643 F.2d 195, 223 (5th Cir. 1981) (upholding settlement despite pre-certification negotiations with some defendants); Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1982); Mars Steel, 834 F.2d 677, 681 (7th Cir. 1987) (criticizing settlement classes but ultimately approving settlement). But some courts recognize that this practice represents a significant departure from the usual Rule 23 scenario and thereby counsel that courts should scrutinize these settlements even more closely. We acknowledge that settlement classes, conceived of either as provisional or conditional certifications, represent a practical construction of the class action rule. Such construction affords considerable economies to both the litigants and the judiciary and is also fully consistent with the flexibility integral to Rule 23. A number of other jurisdictions have already accepted settlement classes as a reasonable interpretation of Rule 23 and thereby achieved these substantial benefits. Although we appreciate the concerns raised about the device, we are confident that they can be addressed by the rigorous applications of the Rule 23 requisites by the courts at the approval stages, as we discuss at greater length herein. For these reasons, we hold that settlement classes are cognizable under Rule 23. E. Are the Rule 23(a) and (b) Findings Required for Settlement Classes? Does Finding the Settlement to Be Fair and Reasonable Serve as a Surrogate for the Findings? There is no explicit requirement in Rule 23 that the district judge make a formal finding that the requisites of the rule have been met in order to certify a class. However, most district judges have routinely done so, assuming that it was required, and in published opinions, a number of courts have endorsed or at least acknowledged the compelling policy reasons for doing so. See, e.g., Eisenberg v. Gagnon, 766 F.2d 770, 785 (3d Cir. 1985); Plummer, 668 F.2d at 659; Interpace Corp. v. Philadelphia, 438 F.2d 401, 404 (3d Cir. 1971); MCL 2d § 30.13 ("The judge should enter findings and conclusions after the hearing, addressing each of the applicable requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)."). For example, where there has been some dispute over certification, a court should give the litigants, particularly the absentees, some statement of the reasons for its decision. Eisenberg, 766 F.2d at 785. Articulated findings also simplify the review of complex cases generally. Id. With respect to settlement classes, we hold that courts must make the findings because the legitimacy of settlement classes depends upon fidelity to the fundaments of Rule 23.16 Inasmuch as collusion, inadequate prosecution and attorney inexperience are the paramount concerns in pre- certification settlements, see Malchman, 706 F.2d at 433; Beef, 607 F.2d at 174, the need for the adequacy of representation finding is particularly acute in settlement class situations, given the inquiry's purpose of detecting cases where there is a "likelihood that the litigants are involved in a collusive suit 16 . This conclusion is supported by the text of Rule 23(e). That section provides that "class action" may not be compromised without court approval, and arguably a case is not a "class action" in the absence of such findings. . . . ." Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 391 F.2d 555, 562 (2d Cir. 1968). There appears to be no authority contra this practice. Indeed, the courts and commentators that have endorsed settlement classes have seemed to assume that the approving court made the requisite class determinations at some point. For example, Newberg's argument rebutting the charge that the "tentative assumption" of class status by the court to foster settlement evades the Rule's strictures continues: The actual class ruling is deferred in these circumstances until after [the] hearing on the settlement approval, following notice to the class. At that time, the court in fact applies the class action requirements to determine whether the action should be maintained as a class action . . . . 2 NEWBERG & CONTE § 11.27 11-50. See also Whitford v. First Nationwide Bk., 147 F.R.D. 135, 142 (WD Ky. 1992) (disregarding even the possibility that these classes would not have to meet all of the normal certification requisites). Even the cases where the courts did not recognize a need to make the determinations demonstrate a heightened concern for fairness and a more cautious approach to settlement approval. See Ace Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Crane Co., 453 F.2d 30, 33 (3d Cir. 1971) (court must be doubly careful where negotiation occurs before certification and designation of a class counsel); Mars Steel, 834 F.2d at 681 (applying a higher standard of fairness); Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655, 664-66 (7th Cir. 1981) (requiring a higher demonstration of fairness); Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 1982) (emphasizing the extensive discovery and ability and experience of counsel). Some courts have certified settlement classes "without articulating or consciously applying Rule 23 tests." 2 NEWBERG & CONTE § 11.27 at 11-52. See, e.g., Mars Steel, 834 F.2d at 681 (suggesting that the certification procedure may not be necessary to combat the potential for abuse created by the use of settlement classes since that potential is "held in check by the requirement that the judge determine the fairness of the settlement . . ."); Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d at 73 (determination that proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate substitutes for Rule 23 findings); In re Beef Antitrust Litig., 607 F.2d 167, 177 (5th Cir. 1979); City of Detroit v. Grinnell, 495 F.2d 448, 464-65 (2d Cir. 1974) (rejecting contention that the court erred when it approved a settlement and acquiesced in the settlement's assumption of the existence of a proper class). Some courts neglecting the findings have taken the view that the notice of proposed settlement, which must be preliminarily approved by the court, "carries the necessary implication that the action complies with Rule 23." Beef, 607 F.2d at 177. We disagree both with this suggestion and with the conclusion that a fairness determination is a surrogate for Rule 23 findings.17 Even if we set aside the problem of the court's inadequate information, the inquiry into the settlement's fairness cannot conceptually replace the inquiry into the propriety of class certification. Normally, a court makes the required commonality and typicality determinations by referencing the original class complaints in order to assure that the claims alleged by the named plaintiffs are common to the class (although the class need not share every claim in common, Hassine v. Jeffes, 846 F.2d 169, 177-78 (3d Cir. 1988)), and that the claims alleged by the named plaintiff occupy approximately the same position of centrality to the named plaintiffs as they do to the rest of the class. Weiss v. York Hosp., 745 F.2d 786, 810 (3d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1060 (1985). Neither the existence of a settlement nor the terms of settlement affect the nature of this important inquiry. The Rule 23(a) class inquiries (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation) constitute a multipart attempt to safeguard the due process rights of absentees. Thus, the ultimate focus falls on the 17 . We note in this regard that other courts have made the determinations of adequacy of representation and homogeneity of the class when evaluating the fairness of the settlement for the express purpose of assuring that they possess enough information to execute their Rule 23(e) duty. See In re Beef Industry Antitrust Litig., 607 F.2d at 173 n.4 (quoting ARTHUR R. MILLER, AN OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL CLASS ACTIONS: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE (Federal Judicial Ctr. 1977)); see also In re Baldwin-United Corp., 105 F.R.D. 475, 483 (S.D. N.Y. 1984) (making findings in the opinion which preliminarily approved the settlement). appropriateness of the class device to assert and vindicate class interests. Conversely, however, the process of negotiation does not reveal anything about commonality and typicality. One might argue that these requisites are merely means to the end of vindicated rights, and that observing the process of negotiation could demonstrate adequate vindication -- the true aim of the Rule. In our view, a court cannot infer that the rights of the entire class were vindicated without having assured that commonality and typicality were satisfied. The 23(b)(3) determination is also important in the regulatory scheme. To be certified as a (b)(3) class, the judge must determine that "questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy." FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3).18 But the settlement approval inquiry is far different from the certification inquiry. In settlement situations, the superiority requirement arguably translates into the question whether the settlement is a more desirable outcome for the class than individualized litigation, and may assure that the settlement has not grossly undervalued plaintiffs' interests. But even if 18 . As the case before us involves a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), we do not address the application of the (b)(1) and (b)(2) requisites which, without the important right to opt out, involve different considerations. this is so, a point we neither concede nor decide, there remains the concern about conflicts between those appointed to represent class interests -- the lawyers and named plaintiffs -- and the rest of the class. These concerns, particularly acute with settlement classes, concentrate the focus of the certification inquiries on the representational elements. Certainly, evaluating the settlement can yield some information relevant to the adequacy of representation determination under 23(a)(4). The settlement evaluation involves two types of evidence: a substantive inquiry into the terms of the settlement relative to the likely rewards of litigation, see Weinberger, 698 F.2d at 73; Protective Comm. for Indep. Stockholders v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424, 88 S. Ct. 1157, 1163 (1968), and a procedural inquiry into the negotiation process. The focus on the negotiation process results from the realization that a judge cannot really make a substantive judgment on the issues in the case without conducting some sort of trial on the merits, exactly what the settlement is intended to avoid. See Malchman v. Davis, 706 F.2d at 433. Instead, the court determines whether negotiations were conducted at arms' length by experienced counsel after adequate discovery, in which case there is a presumption that the results of the process adequately vindicate the interests of the absentees. Weinberger, 698 F.2d at 74; City of Detroit v. Grinnell, 495 F.2d at 463; Baldwin- United, 105 F.R.D. at 482 ("In order to supplement judicial examination of the substance of a compromise agreement, and because a court cannot conduct a trial in order to avoid a trial, attention must be paid to the process by which a settlement has been reached."). Although the procedural focus on the fairness determination yields information pertinent to the adequacy of representation inquiry, it cannot fully satisfy the inquiry. That is because reliance on the negotiation process used to approve the settlement to satisfy the class certification requirements puts excessive pressure on the settlement approved determinations, and, more fundamentally, such a reliance may be circular. Cf. NEWBERG & CONTE § 11.28 at 11-54 (suggesting a greater need for a court to carefully articulate if reasons for settlement approval where the class was not separately certified). Courts approving settlements have examined the negotiating process in light of the "experience of counsel, the vigor with which the case was prosecuted, and the coercion or collusion that may have marred the negotiations themselves." Malchman v. Davis, 706 F.2d 426, 433 (2d Cir. 1983) (citing Weinberger, 698 F.2d at 73; Grinnell, 495 F.2d at 465.). Some of these courts have suggested that the fact that vigorous, arm's length negotiations occurred should allay concerns about adequacy of representation. But these inferences depend on the implicit assumption that the lawyers actually negotiating really were doing so on behalf of the entire class, see 2 NEWBERG & CONTE § 11.28 at 11-59, assumptions which are clearly unjustified in a context where the potential for intra-class conflict further emperils the class's representation. Far too much turns on the adequacy of representation to accept it on blind faith. Without determining that the class actually was adequately represented, the district judge has no real basis for assuming that the negotiations satisfactorily vindicated the interests of all the absentees. The focus on the negotiation process also cannot address the part of the adequacy of representation inquiry intended to detect situations where the named plaintiffs are unsuitable representatives of the absentees' claims. To state that class members were united in the interest of maximizing over-all recovery begs the question. Although that observation might allay some concern about a conflict between the attorney and the class, a judge must focus on the settlement's distribution terms (or those sought) to detect situations where some class members' interests diverge from those of others in the class. For example, a settlement that offers considerably more value to one class of plaintiffs than to another may be trading the claims of the latter group away in order to enrich the former group. In short, the prophylactic devices used by judges to approve these pre-certification settlements without ever formally certifying the class fail to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. Without determining that the class claims are common and typical of the entire putative class and that the class representatives and their counsel are adequate representatives, we have no assurance that the district court fully appreciated the scope and nature of the interests at stake.19 Finally, we note that courts adopting the view that the formal class determinations are not necessary for settlement classes may be contravening not only the language of the rule but also the Supreme Court's requirement in General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160, 102 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1982) (disapproving the trial court's insufficient scrutiny of the named plaintiff's capacity to adequately represent the class), that "[a]ctual, not presumed, conformance with Rule 23(a) remains, however, indispensable." Thus, while we approve the provisional certification of a 19 . In Malchman v. Davis, 706 F.2d at 433, the court was satisfied by the district court's determination that the settlement class satisfied the adequacy of representation inquiry noting: "There is no doubt that the district court must make an independent evaluation of whether the named plaintiffs were adequate representatives of the class . . . . A judge has an obligation to consider whether the interest of the class are adequately represented." (citing East Texas Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403-06, 97 S.Ct. 189, 96-98 (1977)); see also Plummer, 668 F.2d at 659 & n.4. We agree that this is an appropriate focus given the heightened potential for collusion, buy-offs and other abuses in settlement class situations where the negotiations occur before the court appoints class representatives and counsel. We still believe, however, that courts should assure that settlement classes meet all of the requirements of 23(a) and (b). This prescription is consistent with the heightened duty of courts in class action settlements to assure that the absentees' rights are adequately protected. settlement class to facilitate settlement discussions, final settlement approval depends on the finding that the class met all the requisites of Rule 23. F. Can There be a Valid Settlement Class That Would Not Serve as a Valid Litigation Class? As we have previously explained, courts using the settlement class device must at some point definitively certify the class and satisfy themselves that the requisites of Rule 23 have been satisfied. To avoid that process entirely would dismantle the rule's carefully constructed mechanism that serves to protect absentees' due process rights. Moreover, despite some courts' suggestions that the standards are less rigorous for settlement classes, we do not believe that Rule 23 authorizes separate, liberalized criteria for settlement classes. At the outset we note that, while some other courts have nominally complied with the rule, they appear to have assumed that lower standards apply in settlement class cases. See Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 633 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1217, 103 S. Ct. 1219 (1983) ("[C]ertification issues raised by class action litigation that is resolved short of a decision on the merits must be viewed in a different light."); Fisher Bros. v. Phelps Dodge Indus. Inc., 604 F. Supp. 446, 450 (E.D. Pa. 1985); In re Dennis Greenman Securities Litig., 829 F.2d 1539, 1543 (11th Cir. 1987) ("In reviewing settlement certifications, a special standard has been employed."); A.H. Robins, 880 F.2d at 740 (in deciding whether to certify a class, settlement is at least an important factor in favor and might even be a per se ground for certification); Manual.2d at §30.45. Other courts have stated that settlement reduces the potential conflicts among the class and thus enhances the likelihood of meeting the criteria, presumably the same criteria a litigation class must satisfy. See, e.g., Bowling v. Pfhizer, Inc., 143 F.R.D. 141, 159 (S.D. Oh. 1992). Newberg is of this view. See 2 NEWBERG & CONTE §11.28, at 11-58. According to Newberg, though settlement does not impact the numerosity requirement it may indeed increase the likelihood of meeting the commonality and typicality inquiries. "Typicality of claims in a settlement class context requires proof that the interests of the class representative and the class are commonly held for the purposes of receiving similar or overlapping benefits from a settlement." 2 NEWBERG & CONTE §11.28 at 11-58. On this theory, because the court has delayed the findings until the outcome of the litigation (i.e., the settlement agreement) is known, the judge conducts the inquiry based on the relative rewards to the class members rather than based on the various legal claims of class members. So long as all plaintiffs get similar benefits from the settlement, irrespective of the different strengths of their initial claims, the commonality and typicality inquiries are viewed as likely to be satisfied. Under this approach, the adequate representation inquiry is also simplified in the settlement class context by a result-oriented approach toward the class requirement findings. Rather than asking whether the lawyers have sufficient resources and skills to prosecute the action (as would be the case with customary class certification procedures), courts, it is said, need only determine, in hindsight, whether the settlement was negotiated at arms' length, and whether the negotiations were long, thorough and deliberative. See In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 643 F.2d 195, 212 (5th Cir. 1981) (adequacy judged by sufficiency of settlement); In re Domestic Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., 148 F.R.D. 297, 341 (N.D. Ga. 1993) (inequitable distribution). Courts adopting this approach require proof only that named plaintiffs' and class interests are not antagonistic. See, e.g., Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 777 F.2d 113, 123 (3d Cir. 1985) (relying on absence of conflict to find adequate representation); Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779, 788 (3d Cir. 1982) (finding named plaintiff an adequate representative despite small stake in litigation and ignorance of facts and claims); Steiner v. Equimark Corp., 96 F.R.D. 603, 610 (W.D. Pa. 1983) ("The key question [for the adequacy of representation inquiry] is whether their interests are antagonistic."). In these cases, courts have effectively relied on the settlement's terms -- the outcome of the action -- to find the required absence of antagonism.20 We disagree with this approach, championed primarily by Newberg. There is no language in the rule that can be read to authorize separate, liberalized criteria for settlement classes.21 Although we acknowledge the need for flexible interpretation of Rule 23 to enable it to achieve its broader purposes of vindicating difficult individual claims and conserving judicial resources, see Beef, 607 F.2d at 177-78 (discussing the policy needs for flexibility); Ace Heating, 453 F.2d at 33 (recognizing need to give small claimants who did not 20 . For example, in finding adequate representation, one court noted: "[S]o long as all class members are united in asserting a common right, such as achieving the maximum possible recovery for the class, the class interests are not antagonistic for representation purposes." In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 1980-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶63, 163 at 77,788 n. 10 (S.D. Tex. 1979), aff'd, 643 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1981) (citing WRIGHT & MILLER, FED. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE CIVIL § 1768, at nn.7 & 8). 21 . Indeed, if any difference in standards is warranted, pre- certification settlement may raise the adequacy of representation standard. Since this inquiry must ascertain "whether there has been any collusion or undue pressure by the defendants on would be class representatives," see First Comm. Corp. of Boston Consumer Accts. Litig., 119 F.R.D. 301, 308 (D. Mass 1987); Alvarado Partners LP v. Mehta, 723 F. Supp. 540, 546 (D. Colo. 1989), it must carry greater weight in the settlement class context where there is an enhanced potential for those evils. Thus, while the other 23(a) findings remain important when the action settles, the need to assure an absence of collusion and an alignment of interests assumes an especially crucial role. Reliance, for the class requisites analysis, on the settlement's terms and process also increases the importance of an independent conclusion of adequate representation (i.e., one not derived solely by reference to the nature of the negotiations). opt out the right to appeal a settlement approval), we emphasize that Rule 23 is designed to assure that courts will identify the common interests of class members and evaluate the named plaintiff's and counsel's ability to fairly and adequately protect class interests. See Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747, 757 (3d Cir. 1974). Thus, actions certified as settlement classes must meet the same requirements under Rule 23 as litigation classes. To allow lower standards for the requisites of the rule in the face of the hydraulic pressures confronted by courts adjudicating very large and complex actions would erode the protection afforded by the rule almost entirely. Judge Posner has explained the animating concern behind this strict application. "The danger of a premature, even a collusive, settlement is increased when as in this case the status of the action as a class action is not determined until a settlement has been negotiated, with all the momentum that a settlement agreement generates . . . ." Mars, 834 F.2d at 680. The foregoing discussion has focused on adequacy of representation, but the presence of commonality and typicality are equally important to the class action regime. Certifying a class without the existence of questions common to the class (or where the class representatives' claims are not typical) perverts the class action process and converts a federal court into a mediation forum for cases that belong elsewhere, usually in state court. On the other hand, the cases that make the settlement class device appear most useful are cases presenting the most unwieldy substantive and procedural issues, i.e., those diversity cases in which plaintiffs from many states are confronted with differing defenses, differing statutes of limitations, etc. -- precisely those cases that stretch the Rule to its outer-most limits. This is a troublesome issue -- and a close one. Many mass tort actions have this problem. The School Asbestos cases and the Breast Implant cases had it, and this case does, as well. It may initially seem difficult to envision an actual trial of these cases because of the differing defenses certain to be raised under the various bodies of governing law. While the problem may be overstated,22 settlement classes still serve the useful purpose of ridding the courts -- state and federal -- of this albatross even though the case may never have been triable in class form. But if that were the primary function of the settlement class, the federal courts would have become a mediation forum, a result inconsistent with their mission and limited resources. In sum, "a class is a class is a class," and a settlement class, if it is to qualify under Rule 23, must meet 22 . In the School Asbestos case, 789 F.2d at 996, the panel asked counsel to analyze all the claims and defenses and write a report reflecting whether the differing claims and defenses evidence a small number of patterns that would be amenable to trial through a series of special verdicts. The plaintiffs came up with a demonstration that the claims and defenses were reducible to four patterns. That, in our view, was sufficient to satisfy the commonality and typicality inquiries. The same might be true in this case. all of its requirements. The district court should keep these matters in mind on remand. V. IS THE SETTLEMENT CLASS PROPER HERE? A. Were There Adequate Findings Under Rule 23(a)? Certain of the objectors in this case contend that the district court committed plain error by never actually certifying the class as required by Rule 23. See Brief of French Objectors at 18. This, of course, would be a serious error, since without certification there is no class action, and "[i]n a settlement entered without class certification the judgment will not have res judicata effect on the claims of absent class members." Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655, 664 (7th Cir. 1981). The district court certified the class provisionally in a pre-trial order. See Pretrial Order No. 7. We have already noted that provisional certification constitutes an acceptable means of facilitating settlement negotiations. See 2 NEWBERG & CONTE §11.27 at 55-56. It appears that the court believed that it certified the class by "confirming" the provisional certification in its order approving the settlement. (JA 1708, 1745.) However, the court did not make the findings we hold that Rule 23 requires, not even upon approving the settlement. Because we hold today that courts employing settlement classes must still make findings that the class complies with Rule 23(a) and the appropriate parts of Rule 23(b), the court's failure to comply with the rule in this respect is a plain error of law, and hence an abuse of discretion, requiring that the certification be set aside. Our conclusion that the settlement class was not properly certified does not mean that the class could not be certified on remand. Accordingly, we must consider whether the existing record is adequate to support class certification, or whether further record development is required. B. Could the Class Requisites Have Been Met On The Current Record? 1. Numerosity, Commonality, and Typicality As we have explained, a class action -- whether certified for settlement or litigation purposes -- must meet the class requisites enunciated in Rule 23. The district court did not make findings on these issues. The numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a) is plainly satisfied in this action encompassing nearly six million truck owners. The commonality and typicality inquiries of 23(a), however, raise substantial concerns about the sufficiency of this class. The record currently lacks the facts needed to establish these requisites, and the defendants also ardently maintain that the applicability of different defenses to different groups of plaintiffs would prevent the class from satisfying the commonality and typicality requirements. At this juncture, we leave open the possibility that, on remand, the district court may indeed find facts sufficient to support these elements. 2. Adequacy of Representation a. The Situation of the Fleet Owners This settlement class appears to fail to meet Rule 23(a)'s adequacy of representation test. The adequacy of representation inquiry has two components intended to assure that the absentees' interests are fully pursued: it considers whether the named plaintiffs' interests are sufficiently aligned with the absentees, and it tests the qualifications of the counsel to represent the class. See Weiss v. York Hospital, 745 F.2d 786, 811 (3d Cir. 1984); 2 NEWBERG & CONTE § 11.28 at 11-58. On the first prong, we are not satisfied that the interests of various class members were sufficiently aligned; indeed the settlement appears to create antagonism within the class. While some courts have been satisfied that there is no intra-class conflict where "all class members are united in asserting a common right, such as achieving the maximum possible recovery for the class," In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 1980-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 63, 163 at 77, 788 n.10 (S.D. Tex. 1979), aff'd. 643 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1981), we disapprove such a myopic focus on the settlement terms. In this case in particular, the conclusion that the settlement -- that (supposedly) maximized class recovery -- satisfied the requirement that class members' interests not be antagonistic ignores the conspicuous evidence of such an intra- class conflict in the very terms of this settlement. The substantial impediments to fleet owners using these certificates creates a conflict between their interests in this settlement and those of individual owners. (The named plaintiffs are all individual owners.) Moreover, the dubious value of the transfer option, see Part VI(A)(1)(c) infra, one of the principal responses to the fleet owners' objection, does little to reduce the disparity in the prospective value to the different sections of the class. This is not a case where some plaintiffs share the prospect of a future claim with other class members who currently have such a claim. The fleet owners will never enjoy the benefits of the settlement terms, such as the intra-household transfer option, intended specifically for the benefit of individual owners. Thus, we must be concerned that individual owners had no incentive to maximize the recovery of the government entities; they could skew the terms of the settlement to their own benefit. Not surprisingly, the settlement leaves fleet owners with significantly less value than individual owners. At the very least, the class should have been divided into sub-classes so that a court examining the settlement could consider settlement impacts that would be uniform at least within the sub-classes. b. Did Counsel Adequately Represent the Interests of the Entire Class? The other aspect of the adequacy of representation test, whether counsel is qualified and serves the interests of the entire class, also gives us reason to pause. Courts examining settlement classes have emphasized the special need to assure that class counsel: (1) possessed adequate experience; (2) vigorously prosecuted the action; and (3) acted at arms length from the defendant. See, e.g., Malchman, 706 F.2d at 433; Alvarado Partners, 723 F. Supp. at 546. The first criterion is no problem, for these counsel clearly possess the experience and skills to qualify them to pursue these sorts of actions. But the second and third points require attention in view of lack of significant discovery and the the extremely expedited settlement of questionable value accompanied by an enormous legal fee. Before addressing the latter points, it is necessary to begin with some legal theory discussing the structural nature of fee arrangements in class actions of this type, having in mind that even honorable counsel -- like class counsel here -- may be compromised by the possibility of a large fee. (1) Class Action Attorneys' Fees Theory and Structure Beyond their ethical obligations to their clients, class attorneys, purporting to represent a class, also owe the entire class a fiduciary duty once the class complaint is filed. See 2 NEWBERG & CONTE § 11.65 at 11-183; Greenfie [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3009953. Public record. Not legal advice.