Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Texas District Court Denies Class Certification for Hedge Fund Investors on Numerosity and Predominance Grounds

September 18, 2014 by Amanda Romfh Jesteadt and Gary M. Pappas

In 2008, investors in the Parkcentral hedge fund lost as much as $3 billion dollars when Parkcentral’s investment in commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) was devalued. The investors, limited partners of Parkcentral, sued employees of Parkcentral’s general partner alleging that they breached fiduciary duties by making material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the nature of Parkcentral’s investments and hedging strategy.  In particular, the investors claim that the defendants had falsely represented to the investors that the long position in AAA-rated CMBS would be hedged when in fact it was not.

The court first dismissed nearly all of the claims, leaving only breach of fiduciary duty remaining.  Then, the court denied class certification for the investors on two separate (and each independently sufficient) grounds: lack of numerosity under Rule 23(a) and failure to meet any of the requirements of Rule 23(b).  The court found that numerosity was not satisfied even though there are 112-130 potential class members.  The number of class members alone is not determinative.  Instead, the court found that joinder is practical because the potential class members are substantial, sophisticated parties, many of whom were represented by common advisors and all of whose names and contact information can be easily ascertained.  Also, most of the class members are Texas citizens and are sophisticated investors of substantial means who could presumably act through lawyers in a Dallas lawsuit.

Further, the court found that even if numerosity had been met, which it was not, none of the Rule 23(b) requirements were met.  Specifically, plaintiffs argued that either (1) adjudications with respect to individual class members, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members or would substantially impair the ability of non-parties to protect their interests, or (2) common issues predominate and a class action would be superior to other available methods for adjudicating the controversy.  In rejecting both arguments, the court found, among other things, that plaintiffs did not show that defendants’ assets would be insufficient to satisfy plaintiffs’ claims and that the case raises pervasive individual questions about the content of information received, reliance on such information, and damages.  Because plaintiffs did not establish predominance of common issues, the court did not make a determination as to whether the class action would be superior to other available methods for adjudicating the controversy.

In re Parkcentral Global Litigation, No. 3:09-cv-765-M (N.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2014).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

District Court Cleans Up Whirlpool Washing Machine Class Definition

Next Article »

Ninth Circuit Approves Statistical Sampling And Affirms Certification Of Overtime Class
Amanda Romfh Jesteadt

About Amanda Romfh Jesteadt

Amanda Jesteadt is an associate at Carlton Fields in West Palm Beach, Florida. Connect with Amanda on LinkedIn.

Gary M. Pappas

About Gary M. Pappas

Gary Pappas is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida. Connect with Gary on LinkedIn.

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.