Dist. Ct. did not err in entering class certification order appointing plaintiff’s law firm as class counsel in action alleging violation of Junk Fax Prevention Act, even though defendant alleged that said counsel committed ethical misconduct in investigating claims of instant lawsuit. Ct. found that while counsel may have breached promise of confidentiality with third-party by using certain data to identify targets of additional lawsuits, and that certain ethical misconduct could potentially be sufficient to deny class certification request, conduct of instant counsel did not require denial of class certification since any misconduct committed by counsel did not jeopardize Dist. Ct.’s ability to reach proper outcome of case. Ct. similarly held that counsel’s sending of misleading solicitation letters and his tender of $5,000 to another third-party (without showing of any conditions attached to said payment) were insufficient to require denial of class certification request since neither incident cast doubt on counsel’s ability to act as fiduciary of class members.