Premium Plus Partners v. Goldman Sachs & Co.

In proposed class action seeking recovery against defendants who used insider information to timely purchase at profit 30-year Treasury bonds, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying request by entity to continue as class representative where said entity had settled its individual claim with defendants. Ct. rejected entity's claim that it still had stake in action to extent that it might recover some of its costs if class prevailed in instant action. Dist. Ct. similarly did not err in denying separate individual's request to become class representative where Dist. Ct. had previously found that said individual's claim was untimely. As to timeliness issue, Ct. rejected individual's argument that limitation period for instant securities fraud claim did not begin until defendants had confessed or court adjudicated their liability in prior SEC action.