Premium Plus Partners, L.P. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 648 F.3d 533

Meeting at the Treasury on Oct. 31, 2001; embargo imposed until 10:00 am; Davis disclosed embargo breach to Youngdahl and Goldman traders who began buying futures at 9:35 am.
Goldman Sachs traders profited from the eight-minute head start in the 30-year Treasury futures market; the Treasury did not issue 30-year bonds again until 2006.
SEC opened investigation; Wells notices issued; the investigation became public; Davis, Youngdahl, and another were named in 2003 complaint; Goldman settled with the SEC.
Tomlinson and others held short positions and sought class certification alleging commodities fraud; district court denied merits but later ruled on class issues and limitations.
Premium Plus settled its own claim under Rule 68 for the amount sought, with interest; Tomlinson and others sought to intervene or pursue a class, leading to multiple appeals.
The central issue is whether a proposed class representative with a moot claim or a previously litigated claim can represent a live class and whether the accrual rule (Merck) applies to commodities fraud; the court ultimately affirms most rulings but remands on interest calculation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Class representative viability after mootness	Tomlinson argues he can represent the class despite prior loss.	Goldman Sachs argues Tomlinson cannot be a representative since his claim is moot and he lacks typicality/adequacy.	Tomlinson cannot serve as class representative; mootness/adequacy defeats representation.
Accrual of commodities fraud under Merck framework	Merck-based discovery rule applies to when injury and scienter are known.	Section 25(c) accrual is fixed to the date of injury; Merck’s discovery rule should not apply to commodities.	Accrual occurred before April 2002; Merck framework applied for purposes of this case.
Effect of Rule 68 settlement on class standing	Premium Plus should be able to pursue class action post-settlement.	Rule 68 settlement moots the claim, preventing continued class action by the movant.	Premium Plus’s claim is moot; cannot serve as representative; class action cannot proceed with Premium Plus as representative.
Award of prejudgment interest timing	Interest should reflect full time value from injury date.	District court discretionary on interest under Rule 68; no automatic compounding.	Remand for determining proper prejudgment interest calculation from injury date; not a windfall.

Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983) (concepts of confidential information and duty of silence in securities law)
Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975) (purchaser-seller rule and implied private rights of action)
Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 130 S. Ct. 1784 (2010) (accrual of securities-fraud claims hinges on discovery of the violation and scienter)
American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) (tolled statute of limitations during class certification delay)
Wrightsell v. Cook County, 599 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2010) (illustrates class representative requirements post-judicial decisions)
Muro v. Target Corp., 580 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2009) (standing and typicality in class actions)
Pastor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 487 F.3d 1042 (7th Cir. 2007) (interventions and settlement dynamics in class actions)
United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980) (intervention standards in class actions)
Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) (attorney’s fees not to create live controversy where none exists on merits)
Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990) (attorney’s fees and mootness concerns in litigation)
In re Copper Antitrust Litigation, 436 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2006) (accrual and discovery principles for securities-related claims)
Kohen v. Pacific Investment Co., 571 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2009) (corporate imputation of employee knowledge to employer)