Ross v. Abercrombie
& Fitch Company et al
USDC SD Ohio
|
Docket
- Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Company
- USDC SD Ohio (Columbus)
2:05-cv-00819-EAS-TPK
- Filed 9.02.05
|
|
Counsel
- Plaintiffs:
Coughlin Stoia (Robbins Geller)
- Defendants:
Vorys Sater / Skadden Arps
|
Select Filings
|
Appeal to Sixth
Circuit Pending
-
Ross et al v. Abercrombie & Fitch Company et
al
Docket No. 09-4028
Argument set for June 10, 2010; although
parties are in settlement discussions
________________
-
Defendant-Appellant statement of issues:
1. What is the plaintiffs burden of
proof in offering evidence that
demonstrates compliance with the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure?
2. What is the district courts
obligation to resolve disputed factual
issues as they relate to the class
certification requirements in a
securities case?
3. Did the district court err in
certifying a securities fraud class that
relies on the fraud on the market theory
when undisputed evidence of confounding
information precludes a presumption of
class-wide loss causation and therefore
demonstrates that common questions do
not predominate over individualized
questions within the meaning of Rule
23(b)(3)?
4. Did the district court err in
certifying a class without resolving
issues of fact relating to the legal
theories underlying plaintiffs claims
that are directly relevant to compliance
with class certification requirements?
-
Plaintiff-Appellee statement of issues:
(1) Whether the district court
rigorously analyzed and correctly
applied Rule 23 requirements of
typicality, adequacy and predominance,
made appropriate
findings on the evidence presented, and
soundly exercised its discretion in
certifying the class.
(2) Whether the district court properly
found that Lead Plaintiff, The City of
Dearborn Heights Act of 345 Police and
Fire System (Dearborn), established by
a preponderance of evidence that loss
causation can be proven through common,
classwide evidence.
(3) Whether this Court should refuse to
embrace the outlier Fifth Circuit
approach of requiring plaintiffs to
prove loss causation on the merits by a
preponderance of evidence to obtain
class certification.
(4) Whether the district court correctly
found that Dearborns claims were not
confined to analysts earnings
estimates, but also alleged concealed
markdowns,
increased inventories and declining
profitability, thereby satisfying Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23 (Rule 23) typicality,
adequacy and predominance requirements.
(5) Whether the district court correctly
found Dearborns claims typical
regardless of its investment managers
trading rationale.
_________________
|
Related Filings
|
SEC
Disclosures
-
2009 10-K
at page 19 :
On September 2, 2005, a purported class action, styled Robert Ross v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Company, et al., was filed against A&F and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
on behalf of a purported class of all persons who purchased or acquired shares
of A&Fs Common Stock between June 2, 2005 and August 16, 2005. In September and
October of 2005, five other purported class actions were subsequently filed
against A&F and other defendants in the same Court. All six securities cases
allege claims under the federal securities laws related to sales of Common Stock
by certain defendants and to a decline in the price of A&Fs Common Stock during
the summer of 2005, allegedly as a result of misstatements attributable to A&F.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages. On November 1, 2005, a motion to
consolidate all of these purported class actions into the first-filed case was
filed by some of the plaintiffs. A&F joined in that motion. On March 22, 2006,
the motions to consolidate were granted, and these actions (together with the
federal court derivative cases described in the following paragraph) were
consolidated for purposes of motion practice, discovery and pretrial
proceedings. A consolidated amended securities class action complaint (the
Complaint) was filed on August 14, 2006. On October 13, 2006, all defendants
moved to dismiss that Complaint. On August 9, 2007, the Court denied the motions
to dismiss. On September 14, 2007, defendants filed answers denying the material
allegations of the Complaint and asserting affirmative defenses. On October 26,
2007, plaintiffs moved to certify their purported class. After briefing and
argument, the motion was submitted on March 24, 2009, and granted on May 21,
2009. On June 5, 2009, defendants petitioned the Sixth Circuit for permission to
appeal the class certification order and on August 24, 2009, the Sixth Circuit
granted leave to appeal.
|
|
Index this page
Docket
Developments
Counsel
Select filings
Pleadings
Motion to dismiss
Motion to certify
Appeal
Related filings
SEC disclosures
Motion to lift stay
Motion to compel
Roll-up pages
Appeals
Securities
litigation
|
