double recovery for its customers. As a result of the settlement agreement, Lester had no liability to its vendees and no risk associated with potential lawsuits by them. Thus, the award for "Cost to Repair Buildings" covered by the settlement agreement could not result from any damage Lester suffered. Accordingly, the only recovery Lester could have sought was on behalf of its customers. We need not speculate on this point, however. At trial in the Minnesota state court, Lester's president testified. He told the jury that the company sought damages to "fix these buildings" and to get each customer "what he's entitled to." Lester's "Cost to Repair Buildings" damage award was undeniably made for the purpose of satisfying the same claims resolved by the class settlement. This isLester's claim for an award of "Cost to Repair Buildings" owned by class members and covered by the settlement agreement is not parallel to those of the class members themselves. Lester simply sought to obtain a further recovery for the same injury suffered by the class members, with the intention of passing the recovery along to those members. In essence, Lester sought to serve as a conduit for its customers by obtaining additional damages on their behalf. The privity here is far stronger than in Trevino where the grandmother and grand-daughter each sought separate recoveries for their own benefit.4 Certainly, the class members here had a "tremendous incentive" to recover the damages that Lester later sought on their behalf. See Trevino, 99 F.3d at 924. Certainly, Lester and