Union is supported by the Seventh Circuit’s most recent treatment of this issue. In Ferguson v. Roberts, 11 F.3d 696 (7th Cir.1993), the Seventh Circuit held that the statute of limitations for an installment contract started to run on the date the installment contract was originally entered into. The investors in that case had entered into a limited partnership agreement requiring the limited partners to make additional contributions when requested by the general partner. There, as here, additional payments of funds were not considered independent investment decisions. See id. at 703-04. There, as here, Plaintiffs did not have an option, under their contracts, to refuse to make investment payments. See also Young v. Lehigh Corp., No. 80-C-4376, 1989 WL 117960 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 28, 1989) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court holds that the “date
holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due holding that section 10b violation occurs on date of alleged misrepresentation not the date of the sale or purchase of securities holding that interest does not begin to accrue until the date of judgment not the date of verdict holding that the cause of action accrued on the date of sale holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act