With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". class members harmed in similar ways with similar results Modest individual claims-small economic losses Class representatives’ claims typical. No conflict with other class members. Economic damages objective and quantifiable No structural protections to protect unique individual interests ADR provides structural protections, allocation standards and cost-free individual representation 1 . The observations contained in this paragraph are a synthesis of voluminous submissions to the Court. Because the case was settled before trial, Prudential did not avail itself of the opportunity to submit contrary evidence and does not concede the verity of these observations. Accordingly, these remarks shall have no res judicata effect. 2 . See Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 83 F.3d 610 (3d Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert, granted sub nom., Amchem Prods. Inc. v.

A: holding plaintiff seeking lead plaintiff status need only make preliminary showing that it will satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements of rule 23
B: holding that district court abused its discretion in certifying class action when claims were too individualized to satisfy rule 23as commonality and rule 23b3s predominance requirements
C: holding that a class could not be certified because the definition made class members impossible to identify prior to individualized factfinding and litigation and thereby failed to satisfy one of the basic requirements for a class action under rule 23
D: holding that proposed settlement class in asbestos personal injury action did not satisfy federal rule of civil procedure 23 adequacy of representation typicality or predominance requirements where exposureonly futures claimants were not adequately represented and where multiple defendants and widely divergent claims would pose an obstacle to trial
D.