Mish International Monetary Inc. v. Vega Capital London, Ltd., 1:20-cv-04577

Mish International Monetary Inc. (“Mish”), a dealer in rare coins and precious metals, alleges that Vega Capital London, Ltd. and associated individual traders manipulated the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil futures market on April 20, 2020—the first time such futures went negative.
Mish claims the defendants engaged in a coordinated scheme to drive down May 2020 WTI contract prices, profiting from artificially depressed “Trade at Settlement” (TAS) prices.
Mish incurred a net loss of $92,490 after buying and quickly selling May contracts during the class period.
Previously, the court denied most of defendants’ motions to dismiss, allowing claims under the Sherman Act, Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), and unjust enrichment to proceed.
The current decision centers on Mish’s motion to certify a class of all traders who sold NYMEX-traded May 2020 WTI futures between 9:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. CST on April 20, 2020, to liquidate long positions.
Key issues include whether class certification requirements (numerosity, typicality, adequacy, commonality, predominance, superiority) are met and whether plaintiff’s expert testimony suffices as common proof of classwide impact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Class Definition/Ascertainability	Class is defined by objective trading conduct, not dependent on merits or liability.	Definition overbroad/uncertain due to trading account overlap, differing trade types.	Definition is sufficiently clear, objective, and ascertainable.
Numerosity	Over 1,000 unique accounts; CFTC data support large, geographically dispersed class.	Only 11 similarly situated accounts; potential overcounting.	Numerosity satisfied via audit and regulatory data; joinder impracticable.
Typicality and Adequacy	Mish’s claims and injuries mirror those of class; differences in order type and timing don’t defeat typicality.	Mish’s trades atypical; potential conflicts with TAS sellers and last-minute sellers.	Variation doesn’t preclude certification; Mish typical and adequate as representative.
Commonality & Predominance	Common legal/factual questions and expert methodology (TVP-VAR) apply to all; classwide price impact provable.	Damage and causation require individualized inquiries; expert’s methodology unreliable	Plaintiff’s expert methodology admissible/reliable for class certification; predominance met.
Superiority	Class action is best vehicle given small/mixed claim sizes, judicial economy, and need for uniformity.	Some class members have large claims and may prefer individual suits; arbitration issues.	Class action superior even with variation in claim size; arbitration defense undeveloped.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (commonality standard for class certification)
Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (merits/Rule 23 overlap at certification stage)
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and damages methodology)
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (using representative evidence and predominance analysis)
Kohen v. Pac. Inv. Mgmt. Co. LLC, 571 F.3d 672 (individual damages in antitrust class actions)
Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802 (common proof of antitrust impact for certification)
Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. 804 (elements for class certification in securities fraud)