be brought as a class action. In McKesson, the court avoided ruling on this issue, but stated that there was doubt as to whether the class could be certified because the class may lack typicality. We find no reason in this case to prevent the class from bringing this action on behalf of the plan. Defendants do not argue that plaintiffs’ desired relief would be incompatible or that there is somehow a conflict of interest in fifing suit on behalf of the plan as well as individually. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit has determined that in similar cases plaintiffs seeking recovery on behalf of a plan must sue as either representatives of the plan in a derivative action or as representatives of the beneficiaries in a class action suit. See Thornton v. Evans, 692 F.2d 1064, 1080 (7th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). We find no reason that this plaintiff class
recognizing cause of action by class member against class counsel for negligence in providing notice recognizing that in a derivative action the corporation for whose benefit suit is brought is a necessary party to the action holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state holding that an action against nonfiduciaries for a conspiracy with fiduciaries to violate trust obligations must be brought as a derivative suit or class action because it will avoid multiple litigation while providing the beneficiaries with a forum to adjudicate claims against the fund as a whole holding that in rendering judgment following the settlement of a derivative action that did not involve a class action trial court lacked jurisdiction to render judgment that would adjudicate rights and personal claims of individual shareholders who were not parties to derivative action that was being settled