have furnished affidavits from several large-volume purchasers who oppose class certification. Assuming, as we must, that the allegations in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint are true, the fact that an illegally controlled potash market tends to favor the long-term interests of several large members of the putative class is not sufficient to prevent class certification. This is not an interest the law is willing to protect. See 3B Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 23.06-2 at 23-182 (2d ed. 1993 & Supp. 1994) (a court is not authorized to dismiss a class action based upon a substantial legal claim merely because some members of the class prefer to leave the violation of their rights unremedied) (citing cases); White v. Local 942, Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., 90 F.R.D. 368, 372 (D.Ala.1981) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, those large-volume purchasers who
holding that a class plaintiff who seeks to assert statutory rights to protect a class of which he is a member is not asserting rights antagonistic to any members of that class recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification