the claims at issue in this lawsuit. 4. Certification of the Conspiracy Class Under Rule 23(b)(2) As a preliminary matter, the court wishes to observe that given the court’s ruling certifying the conspiracy class under Rule 23(b)(3), there is some authority to suggest that the court need not decide the issue of whether the conspiracy class may also be certified under Rule 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b) is written in the disjunctive — that is, it provides that a class action may be certified if the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are satisfied and in addition the requirements of subsection (1) “or” (2) “or” (3) are satisfied, and therefore a class action can be maintained under any one of these three subsections. See In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Lit., 280 F.3d 124, 147 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 917, 122 S.Ct. 2382,
holding the court was not required to decide the issue of whether the district court properly certified a rule 23b2 class because the court already concluded that the district court appropriately certified the class under rule 23b3 citing authority for the proposition that a court need only find that a class action may be maintained under any of the three subdivisions holding that when a court of appeals has jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal the scope of appellate review is not limited to the precise question certified by the district court because the district courts order not the certified question is brought before the court recognizing that actions for damages are best certified under rule 23b3 holding that because no class was certified at the time the individual claims were dismissed the class action was properly dismissed holding that a class could not be certified because the definition made class members impossible to identify prior to individualized factfinding and litigation and thereby failed to satisfy one of the basic requirements for a class action under rule 23