29. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and as a class action under the provisions of Rule 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the members of the following Class: All persons who purchased Containerboard Products directly from any of the Defendants or their subsidiaries or affiliates for use or delivery in the United States from at least as early as August 2005 until the Present. Specifically excluded from this Class are the Defendants; the officers, directors or employees of any Defendant; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and any affiliate, legal representative, heir or assign of any Defendant. Also excluded from this Class are any federal, state or local governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this action.  30. Class Identity: The Class is readily identifiable and is one for which records should exist.  31. Numerosity: Due to the nature of the trade and commerce involved, Plaintiff believes that there are thousands of Class members as above described, the exact number and their identities being known to Defendants and their Co-conspirators. 8  32. Typicality: Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class because Plaintiff purchased Containerboard Products directly from one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, and therefore Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same common course of conduct giving rise to the claims of the members of the Class and the relief sought is common to the Class.  33. Common Questions Predominate: There are questions of law and fact common to the Class, including, but not limited to: a. Whether Defendants and their Co-conspirators engaged in an agreement, combination, or conspiracy to fix, raise, elevate, maintain, or stabilize prices of Containerboard Products sold in interstate commerce in the United States; b. The identity of the participants of the alleged conspiracy; c. The duration of the conspiracy alleged herein and the acts performed by Defendants and their Co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy d. Whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1; e. Whether the conduct of Defendants and their Co-conspirators, as alleged in this Complaint, caused injury to the business or property of the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class; f. The effect of Defendants’ alleged conspiracy on the prices of Containerboard Products sold in the United States during the Class Period; and g. The appropriate class-wide measure of damages.  34. These and other questions of law or fact which are common to the members of the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class.  35. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class in that Plaintiff’s interests are aligned with, and not antagonistic to, those of the other members of the Class and Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in the prosecution of class actions and antitrust litigation to represent itself and the Class. 9  36. Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy since individual joinder of all damaged Class members is impractical. Prosecution as a class action will eliminate the possibility of repetitious litigation. The damages suffered by individual Class members are relatively small, given the expense and burden of individual prosecution of the claims asserted in this litigation. Absent a class action, it would not be feasible for Class members to seek redress for the violations of law herein alleged. Further, individual litigation presents the potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments and would greatly magnify the delay and expense to all parties and to the court system. Therefore, a class action presents far fewer case management difficulties and will provide the benefits of unitary adjudication, economy of scale and comprehensive supervision by a single court.