Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Securities Class Actions Receive Increased Scrutiny: District Court Applies “Stringent Standards” Of Dukes And Comcast To Deny Certification

April 9, 2014 by Carlton Fields

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently denied certification of a putative securities law class after finding that plaintiff failed to put forth actual facts showing adequacy and predominance, as required to satisfy the “stringent standards” of Rule 23 pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, as well as the Fifth Circuit’s decision in the securities law context in Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp.  The plaintiff had sought to certify a class of investors who acquired stock from Kosmos Energy Limited through its May, 2011 initial public offering, claiming the company’s registration statement and prospectus contained false and misleading information.

In denying certification, the court emphasized that Comcast requires “quality evidence for each Rule 23 element — period.”  The court found quality evidence of adequacy lacking where the class representative had never seen (much less read) Kosmos’ offering documents, nor could she identify any misstatements contained therein.  The court also found quality evidence of predominance lacking where plaintiff — in lieu of any proof that common issues predominated for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3) —  relied on conclusory statements that securities actions are ideally suited for class treatment.

Discussing the changing landscape of class actions in general, the court noted that the previous two decades have been marked by a departure from a “presumptively favorable approach” to class certification towards greater skepticism and the imposition of a more rigorous review. Ultimately, the court specified that, “[g]oing forward, the clear directive to plaintiffs seeking class certification — in any type of case — is that they will face a rigorous analysis by the federal courts, will not be afforded favorable presumptions from the pleadings or otherwise and must be prepared to prove with facts — and by a preponderance of the evidence — their compliance with the requirements of Rule 23.”

This case is the latest to suggest that securities class actions are receiving increased scrutiny.  On March 5, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., which raised the question of whether the Court should overrule or modify the Basic v. Levinson presumption of reliance in cases involving a fraud on the market theory and whether defendants may put forth evidence to rebut that presumption at the class certification stage.  Although the Court has yet to rule on these issues, its willingness to address them suggests it may be ready to rethink its approach to securities class actions.  Some believe that it should; a February 28, 2014 study initiated by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform looked at the economic consequences of such cases.  The study determined that securities class actions harm both investors and the economy, causing shareholders to suffer drops in stock prices and resulting in settlements that redistribute funds to class members who would not be able to recover damages in court.

In re: Kosmos Energy Ltd. Sec. Litig., Case. No. 3:12-CV-373 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2014).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Must Claims Severed From A CAFA Class Action Be Remanded To State Court? The Fifth Circuit Says No.

Next Article »

Issue of Gmail Users’ Consent to Google’s Email-Interception Practices Defeats Class Certification
Avatar

About Carlton Fields

Related Articles

  1. GCs facing more bet-the-company and higher exposure class actions
  2. California District Court Certifies Classes of Fixed Index Annuities Purchasers
  3. 2016 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey Reveals Important Trends in Class Action Management

Get Weekly Updates!

2019 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

  • Class Action Survey: What Percentage of Class Action Lawsuits Are Settled? When do Most Settlements Occur?
  • Class Action Survey: True or False? The Amount of Time In-House Attorneys Spent Managing Class Actions Has Increased.
  • No Speaking? No Standing!

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
© 2014–2019 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.