Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Second Circuit Clarifies Ascertainability Rule, Rejecting “Heightened” Standard of Administrative Feasibility

August 7, 2017 by Carlton Fields

The Second Circuit recently rejected the “heightened” ascertainability requirement under Rule 23(b)(3), turning aside a challenge to a district court’s certification of a securities fraud class action. Instead, the court chose to follow the Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits by adopting an ascertainability standard that only requires “that a class be defined using objective criteria that establish a membership with definite boundaries.”

A district court certified two classes in the securities fraud case: one for claims based on the Exchange Act and one for claims based upon the Securities Act. Because the relevant debt securities were not traded on any U.S. exchange, putative class members could only assert claims if they acquired their securities in “domestic transactions.” On appeal of the certification order, the defendants argued the classes failed to satisfy Rule 23’s implicit “ascertainability” requirement (along with predominance) because putative class members had to establish that they acquired their securities in a domestic transaction.

The defendants had argued for a “heightened” ascertainability requirement in which the proposed classes had to be administratively feasible — over and above the baseline requirements of definiteness and objectivity.

The Second Circuit rejected that standard, finding that it was neither required by its prior decision in Brecher v. Republic of Argentina nor consistent with Rule 23. The court explained the Brecher opinion’s reference to administrative feasibility was not strictly part of the court’s holding and was not intended to create an independent ground for denying certification; rather, administrative feasibility was the purpose of the ascertainability requirements of definiteness and objectivity. Analyzing Rule 23, the court found that the administrative feasibility test facially duplicates the manageability component of superiority as well as risks overlapping with the predominance requirement.

The Second Circuit then criticized the district court’s analysis of ascertainability as “not precisely consistent with” its newly-clarified standard, explaining that the lower court concentrated on feasibility concerns the Second Circuit has now decided are not controlling. Nonetheless it affirmed the lower court’s certification order, concluding that the trial court findings demonstrate adherence to the appropriate ascertainability requirements. The class definitions included people who acquired certain securities within certain time periods via domestic transactions —criteria which were deemed sufficiently objective and definite.

In re Petrobras Sec., No. 16-1914 (2d Cir. July 7, 2017).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Are DC Federal Courts the Next Hotbed for Data Breach Class Actions?

Next Article »

Fifth Circuit Vacates Settlement Approval in ERISA Class Action, Remanding With Instructions to Reexamine the Legitimacy of Promised Future Payments
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.