Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Second Circuit Affirms District Court’s Denial of Certification of Class of Investors Alleging Common Law Fraud Under New York Law

November 20, 2014 by Carlton Fields

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of class certification of a class of investors based on the appellants’ failure to satisfy the numerosity and commonality requirements of Rule 23(a).  Following the collapse of the Cheyne SIV in 2007, a structured investment vehicle structured by Morgan Stanley, the appellants sought to certify a class of sophisticated institutional investors that purchased notes from the SIV between 2004 and 2007.  The class action complaint alleged that Morgan Stanley and the defendant ratings agencies committed common law fraud because the agencies gave the SIV unreliable ratings that Morgan Stanley allegedly demanded and used in its selling documents despite knowing of their unreliability.

Although the appellants provided evidence of more than 100 potential class members, the Second Circuit affirmed that the appellants failed to establish numerosity.  According to the appellate court, the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that a class was not superior to joinder based on the “size, sophistication, and individual stakes of the parties.”  Specifically, joinder was possible because the class was made up of sophisticated institutional investors that each had millions of dollars at stake and the ability to pursue their claims individually.   The Second Circuit also added that, due to the differences in the notes purchased by the individual investors, the efficiencies offered by class certification were minimal.

The Second Circuit further affirmed the district court’s denial of certification based on the appellant’s failure to establish commonality.  The appellate court held that the appellants’ “fraud-created-the-market” theory does not apply to state law causes of action and agreed with the district court that the appellants failed to establish class-wide reliance as a common issue.

Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., No. 13-2095  (2d Cir. Oct. 31, 2014).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Division I Athlete Commences Collective Action Seeking Pay For Play

Next Article »

California District Court Denies Certification Where Putative Class Members Lack Standing and Plaintiff Fails to Conduct Extensive Choice of Law Analysis Necessary to Support Nationwide Class
Avatar

About Carlton Fields

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.