With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". an opt out as the more people locked into the settlement, the more likely it is to survive. In sum, presently injured class representatives cannot adequately represent the futures plaintiffs’ interests and vice versa. Georgine, 83 F.3d at 630-31 (emphasis added). The majority’s only explanation for its decision is that the district court’s determination that a conflict did not exist was supported by the testimony of the settling parties’ expert, Geoffrey Hazard, and the district court’s own expert, Eric Green. That explanation is hardly compelling. The district court’s determination that the facts before it did not amount to a conflict of interest was not a finding of fact to which we should defer. Instead, it is a conclusion of law, see United States Fire Ins. Co., 50 F.3d at 1311 (<HOLDING>), and it is not enough simply to note that two

A: holding that we review constitutional challenges de novo
B: holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo
C: holding that we review a district courts interpretation of a statute de novo
D: holding that we review de novo a district courts application of ethical norms governing attorney conduct
D.