The court held that the class settlement—one it characterized as “reek[ing] of collusion at the expense of class members”—featured three “red flags” identified in Bluetooth. First, Plaintiffs’ counsel received a disproportionate share of the settlement—almost $7 million—while the class received less than $1 million. Further, the settlement provided for no direct notice to class members, reducing the redemption rate. Second, the parties agreed to a “clear sailing arrangement” in which ConAgra agreed not to challenge the agreed-upon fees for class counsel. This created the possibility that Defendant agreed to pay class counsel excessive fees in exchange for counsel accepting a lower amount for class members. Third, the agreement included a “kicker” or “reverter” clause in which ConAgra, not the class members, would receive a reversion of excess fees if the court reduced the agreed-upon attorney’s fees.