stating that “[t]he district court may use the procedures suggested by Rule 23 to cope with the [distinctions between plaintiffs], if, indeed, they exist” and noting that if the district court encounters individual damages issues “[t]he effective administration of 23(b)(3) [may] ... require the use of the sensible device of split trials”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “[t]he district court may use the procedures suggested by Rule 23 to cope with the [distinctions between plaintiffs], if, indeed, they exist” and noting that if the district court encounters individual damages issues “[t]he effective administration of 23(b)(3) [may] ... require the use of the sensible device of split trials”
- holding that class was proper for certification and that common issues predominated over individual issues, where alleged misrepresentations were made in standard prospectus issued to class members
- overturning a district court's denial of class certification, the court found that a plaintiff who purchased stock in reliance on one prospectus could represent those who purchased stock based on two other prospectuses, because misstatements were present in all three documents
- providing guidance to district court that striking portions of complaint with respect to prayer for punitive damages would be acceptable because punitive damages not authorized in private securities actions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HAYS, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur in the court’s determination as to the propriety of a class action. I dissent from Part III of Judge KAUFMAN’S opinion on the ground that the issue of punitive damages is not appeal-able.