With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". qualified counsel. UAW v. GMC, 497 F.3d at 626. To a large extent, the adequacy requirement tends to merge with the commonality and typicality criteria of Rule 23(a)(2) and (3). Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 626 n. 20, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997). As set forth above, Lead Plaintiffs’ interests and claims are common to and typical of the classes they represent. They do not have any interests that are antagonistic to those of the Class and the record reflects that they have pursued this litigation and the settlement negotiations vigorously, sharing the common goal of maximizing recovery. Thus, there is no conflict, intra-class or otherwise, that would defeat class certification. See Ford Motor Co., 2006 WL 1984363 at *19-20, 2006 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 70741 at *56 (<HOLDING>) For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court

A: recognizing an exception to the conflict rule where the conflict arose after the award of the contract
B: recognizing conflict
C: holding that the court must consider the adequacy of the inquiry into the conflict the extent of the conflict and the timeliness of the motion
D: recognizing that only a conflict going to the very subject matter of the claims will defeat adequacy and there is no conflict with class members simply because the settlement may impact individuals differently
D.