would be impracticable. 2. Commonality Plaintiffs have alleged questions of law and fact which are common to the proposed class. According to Plaintiffs, these common questions of law and fact include (1) “whether the defendants conspired among themselves and with others to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices of potash sold in the United States” and (2) “whether defendants’ conduct caused injury to the business or property of plaintiffs and the members of the class, and if so, the appropriate class-wide measure of damages.” (TAC ¶ 29.) Insofar as Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix the wholesale price of potash, they have satisfied the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a). See In re Catfish Antitrust Litig., 826 F.Supp. 1019, 1034 (N.D.Miss.1993) (<HOLDING>); In re Workers’ Compensation, 130 F.R.D. 99,
holding that in addition to the elements of the substantive violation a rico conspiracy requires proof of the additional element of an agreement recognizing that ajntitrust pricefixing conspiracy cases by their nature deal with common legal and factual questions about the existence scope and effect of the alleged conspiracy holding the fedrevid 801d2e requires proof of the conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence and allows consideration of the offered declaration as part of the proof of the conspiracy holding that alleged pricefixing conspiracy involved common questions relating to the existence and proof of illegal agreement holding that overcharges paid as a result of a pricefixing conspiracy were sufficient to support ucl standing