471 F.3d 24 (2006)
- In its decision, the district court considered the issue of the standard of proof that plaintiff had to meet to obtain class certification, concluding that plaintiffs had to make "some showing."
- The district court explained that the showing may take the form of expert opinions, evidence, or the uncontested allegations of the complaint.
- The court concluded that the district court could not certify the class without making a ruling that each Rule 23 requirement was met, and that a lesser standard such as "some showing" for satisfying each requirement would not suffice.
- Further, all of the evidence had to be assessed as with any other threshold issue.
- The court added that the fact that a Rule 23 requirement might overlap with an issue on the merits did not avoid its obligation to make a ruling as to whether the requirement was met, although such a circumstance might appropriately limit the scope of the court's inquiry at the class certification stage.
- Finally, with respect to the factors of reliance and lack of knowledge of the scheme, the court held that plaintiffs could not satisfy the predominance requirement for a Rule 23(b)(3) class action, and vacated the district court's order.
The court vacated the district court's order granting class certifications in each of the six cases and remanded for further proceedings.
Suggested Study Aids For Securities Regulation Law
Securities Regulation in a Nutshell, 10th (Nutshell Series)
Securities Regulation: Examples & Explanations, 5th Edition
Securities Regulations: The Essentials