## Facts

- A trustee shareholder filed a federal securities-fraud action under Exchange Act § 10(b) and SEC Rule 10b-5 against officers and directors of a Colorado computer-systems company, alleging misleading statements that inflated the stock price.
- The court dismissed pendent state-law claims, leaving only the federal securities claim.
- The court conditionally certified a class of purchasers of the company’s common stock during a defined period.
- Over an extended period, plaintiff’s counsel engaged in repeated delays, including late filings and slow progress on class-related obligations, prompting judicial warnings.
- Counsel intentionally postponed seeking approval to send Rule 23(c)(2) class notice, asserting a cost-saving strategy; notice was sought and sent only much later while a defense motion to decertify was pending.
- Defendants moved to decertify, asserting inadequacy of the named plaintiff and class counsel and arguing the claim was time-barred.
- The court identified concerns about the named plaintiff’s credibility and motives, including hostility toward some defendants and circumstances that could raise individualized defenses not shared by absent class members.

## Issues

1. Whether the named plaintiff satisfied Rule 23(a)’s typicality and adequacy requirements given credibility concerns, asserted personal motives, and potential individualized defenses.
2. Whether class counsel satisfied Rule 23 adequacy requirements and fiduciary obligations to absent class members in light of prolonged delays and the intentional postponement of class notice.
3. Whether the § 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

## Decision

- The court granted decertification (or denied continued class status), concluding the action could not proceed as a class action.
- The court held the named plaintiff was not an adequate class representative under Rule 23(a)(3)–(4) due to atypical, individualized issues and concerns that could distract from class-wide claims.
- The court held class counsel failed to meet fiduciary obligations to absent class members, emphasizing undue delay and untimely pursuit of class notice.
- The court rejected the statute-of-limitations defense, finding the alleged fraud was not reasonably discoverable until after a date that made the complaint timely when filed.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(a) typicality and adequacy are not met when the representative’s credibility, motives, or individualized circumstances create conflicts or defenses likely to shift focus away from common class issues.
- Class counsel in a Rule 23 action owe fiduciary duties to absent class members and must act diligently; strategic or cost-based delay in providing class notice may support a finding of inadequate representation.
- Timeliness of a federal securities-fraud claim does not establish suitability for class treatment; Rule 23 adequacy failures can require decertification even when the underlying claim is timely.

## Conclusion

The court refused to allow class treatment because neither the named plaintiff nor class counsel adequately protected absent class members’ interests, but it held the federal securities-fraud claim was not time-barred, leaving the case to proceed only outside a certified class.


Dubin v. Miller, 132 F.R.D. 269 (D. Colo. 1990)