Opinion ID: 162883
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reverse Auction Argument

Text: 38 Finally, Objectors argue the district court erred in failing to find that the settlement agreement was a collusive reverse auction designed to undercut the competing Texas class actions. The district court found that there was no evidence of collusion, and nothing Objectors direct us to in the record convinces us that the district court's finding on that point was clearly erroneous. Moreover, Objectors have no response to the argument the settling parties make, and with which the district court agreed, that Objectors reverse auction argument would lead to the conclusion that no settlement could ever occur in the circumstances of parallel or multiple class actions — none of the competing cases could settle without being accused by another of participating in a `collusive reverse auction.' Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 20, App. Vol. XV, tab 131 at 4801. Absent some more concrete evidence of collusion than Objector's conclusory allegations and inferences, we decline to disturb the district court's conclusion that the settlement was not a collusive reverse auction. 6