best possible recovery, and (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation. Girsh, 521 F.2d at 157; Stoetzner v. United States Steel Corp., 897 F.2d 115, 118 (3d Cir.1990) (citing City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2nd Cir.1974)). “The findings required by the Girsh test are factual ... which will be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous.” In Re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank, 55 F.3d 768, 786 (3d Cir.1995) (citations omitted). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals outlines general principles to be followed to determine whether a settlement “represents a good value for a relatively weak case or a sell-out of an otherwise strong case.” In Re General Motors, 55 F.3d at 806 (<HOLDING>). “According to Girsh, courts approving
holding that eight years between prior convictions and the beginning of the charged conspiracy was not too remote holding that five alleged incidents in four years were too few too separate in time and too mild  to create an abusive working environment holding that the settlement was not fair adequate or reasonable since it was agreed upon too quickly with too little development on the merits holding sanctions order was too general to support award holding that federal wage controls applied to state employees too