Opinion ID: 162883
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Approval of Settlement as Fair and Reasonable

Text: 31 We have noted four factors to be considered in assessing whether a proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate: 32 (1) whether the proposed settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated; 33 (2) whether serious questions of law and fact exist, placing the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt; 34 (3) whether the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation; and 35 (4) the judgment of the parties that the settlement is fair and reasonable. 36 Gottlieb, 11 F.3d at 1014; see also Jones, 741 F.2d at 324. 37 Objectors make a variety of arguments as to why the settlement was unfair and unreasonable. They particularly argue that the allocation of the settlement fund among the various subgroups is unfair. They also repeatedly allege that the settlement was the product of collusion, although they point to little concrete evidence in support of this allegation. 5 The district court carefully went through each of the four factors listed in Gottlieb and Jones and considered all of Objectors' arguments. The court thoroughly considered Objector's allocation arguments, and their arguments concerning purported collusion, and solicited extensive input from the fairness expert. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the settlement, from which an extremely small percentage of class members opted out, was fair, reasonable and adequate, for substantially the reasons stated in the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.