plaintiff is the person or group of persons that (1) has filed the complaint or made a motion for appointment in response to a notice to class members about the pendency of the suit; (2) has the “largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class”; and (3) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. § 78u — 4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). The presumption may be rebutted by proof from another class member that the presumptively most adequate plaintiff either (1) will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; or (2) is subject to “unique defenses” that make that plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II); see also Koos v. First Nat’l Bank of Peoria, 496 F.2d 1162, 1164 (7th Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>). At the hearing, the three movants with the
holding that after a class is certified the controversy may exist  between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot holding that where named plaintiff was employee of class counsel district court did not abuse its discretion by denying class certification holding that a class action may continue even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot holding that named plaintiff who did not have a viable claim against defendant could not serve as a class representative and vacating class certification accordingly holding that a named plaintiff is not a proper class representative where it is predictable that a major focus of the litigation will be on an arguable defense unique to the named plaintiff or a small subclass