Certification Regarding requirements for certification, a settlement class must meet the re quirements for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997). Thus, the named plaintiffs must meet the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the subsections of Rule 23(b). Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs., Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 423 (4th Cir.2003). The practice in this circuit is “to give Rule 23 a liberal rather than a restrictive construction, adopting a standard of flexibility in application [that] will in the particular case best serve the ends of justice for affected parties and promote judicial efficiencies.” Id. at 424 (quoting In re A.H. Robins, Co., Inc., 880 F.2d 709, 740 (4th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>)). In the instant case, plaintiffs seek
holding rule 54b certification invalid because unaccompanied by any statement of reasons and factors underlying trial courts decision to grant certification holding that while it is not appropriate to consider the merits in determining certification the admissibility of all evidence which has relevance to the merits is not barred if it is relevant to the purpose of refuting or supporting the existence of a class holding that rule 54b certification order should contain specific findings setting forth reasons for certification holding that it was proper in determining certification to consider whether certification would foster the settlement of the case with advantage to the parties and with great savings in judicial time and services holding need certification filed after information returned was timely because the statute includes no deadline for filing a certification  and no court has imposed one