In In re Kosmos Energy Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 3:12-CV-373-B, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36365 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2014), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Boyle, J.) denied lead plaintiff’s class certification motion in a consolidated action alleging claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, 77l(a)(2), 77o. The 1933 Act regulates registration and offering statements by holding issuers and other offering participants strictly liable for material misstatements and omissions. Reliance is not an element of the claim. Plaintiff’s class certification motion rested on the notion that 1933 Act claims presumptively deserve class treatment. The district court, however, rejected the continued vitality of this notion in light of the recent “evolution of the case authority on class certification” requiring “a more skeptical view with a more exacting review process.” The district court’s decision recognizes that, as with other substantive areas of law, this “evolution” applies in securities law cases. Hence, historically “pro-plaintiff” approaches to class certification in securities cases (including cases based on 1933 Act claims) must yield to the newly evolved class certification standards.
Continue Reading District Court Cites Recent “Evolution” of Rule 23 Standards to Deny Class Certification Motion in Securities Action Based Upon Allegedly Misleading Registration Statement
About
John M. Landry is a special counsel in the firm's Los Angeles office. He is a member of the firm's Business Trial Practice Group.
More Posts
District Court Cites Recent “Evolution” of Rule 23 Standards to Deny Class Certification Motion in Securities Action Based Upon Allegedly Misleading Registration Statement
Ninth Circuit Concludes That Common Issues Do Not Predominate Where Retailer’s In-Store Signs and Oral Sales Statements Place Each Putative Class Member’s Exposure to Misleading Statements in Doubt
Fifth Circuit Holds That Securities Fraud Defendants May Not Rebut the Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption at the Class Certification Stage Through Evidence of No Price Impact
United States Supreme Court Holds that Class Action Securities Fraud Plaintiffs Need Not Prove the Materiality of the Alleged False Statements or Omissions to Support Certification of a Class, Resolving Circuit Split
About
John M. Landry is a special counsel in the firm's Los Angeles office. He is a member of the firm's Business Trial Practice Group.