United States: Court Takes Cue From Comcast v. Behrend, Certifies Class As To Liability But Not Damages

Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

In what appears to be an increasingly common practice since the Supreme Court decided Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426 (2013), the Southern District of New York recently certified a class as to liability, but rejected certification as to damages.  Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., — F.R.D. —-, 2014 WL 4840752, 09-3701 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2014).  Taking a cue from Comcast, the Court held that the predominance requirement for class certification—that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members," see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)—requires plaintiffs to specify a damages methodology that can be utilized for the entire class.  The plaintiffs, investors in certain mortgage-backed securities issued by JP Morgan Chase & Co. and related entities (collectively "JPM"), failed to adequately specify the methodology they planned to use to value the securities at issue.  The Court therefore rejected certification as to damages and placed responsibility on each class member to prove damages on a member-by-member basis.  The Court, however, found that the plaintiffs proved predominance as to liability and certified the class for that limited purpose.

Plaintiffs' Claims: Misleading Statements in Mortgage-Backed Securities Offering Documents

Fort Worth is a putative securities class action against JPM stemming from alleged falsehoods made by JPM in its securities offerings.  The securities, known as "pass-through certificates," ("Certificates") consisted of residential mortgage loans that JPM bought from lenders, packaged into trusts, and sold to investors on the market.  According to the plaintiffs, the Certificates' registration statements contained false or misleading statements that concealed the true value of the underlying loans and overstated the rigor of the underwriting standards that had been applied to the Certificates' issuance.  The plaintiffs sued JPM under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

In September of last year, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired any Certificates prior to March 23, 2009.  To support their case for certification, the plaintiffs submitted a report from a mortgage-backed securities expert, who opined that the case was appropriate for class action treatment for various reasons.  Specifically, the expert posited that the issues—i.e., the value of the Certificates and the effect of JPM's alleged misstatements thereon—were common to all class members and that damages could be calculated on a class-wide basis.

Court Rejects JPM's Admissibility Challenge

Initially, JPM challenged the report's admissibility, arguing the expert "performed no analysis to support" his conclusions and was relying instead on "hypothetical speculation."  But the Court held the expert's "general knowledge of economic principles and of the market for mortgage-backed securities" rendered his methods sufficiently reliable for admissibility purposes.  Further, at the class certification (as opposed to liability) stage, there was no need to quantify the effects of the misstatements on the Certificates' value; the expert need only show that the misstatements "would have affected the value of the Certificates in a common manner."  Thus, it was irrelevant that the expert had yet to analyze the degree of the plaintiffs' harm; this went to damages—not to the expert's reliability for certification purposes.

Plaintiffs Proved Predominance as to Liability, but not Damages

Then the Court proceeded to decide whether "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members," as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).  JPM argued that the Certificates—and the processes by which they were issued—were "just too complex" for class-wide analysis.  But the Court held that mortgage-backed securities' complexity does not defeat predominance.  Because JPM issued the Certificates pursuant to the "same basic process," and because alleged flaws in that process were subject to "common proof," the Court concluded that "[t]he merits of Plaintiffs' claims hinge on systemic conduct" and that JPM's liability could properly be determined on a class-wide basis.

The Court rejected certification as to damages, however, holding that the plaintiffs' expert failed to specify a damages methodology that could be applied to all class members. The Court noted that the United States Supreme Court in Comcast v. Behrend placed "emphasis on the importance of damages calculations to the analysis of predominance at the class certification stage[.]"  Comcast was an antitrust case in which the Supreme Court reversed class certification because the plaintiffs' damages methodology failed to reflect the one theory of antitrust impact that that had been accepted by the District Court.  The Supreme Court held that to prove predominance of common issues, plaintiffs must show that a sufficient nexus exists between their theory of liability and their theory of damages—which the Comcast plaintiffs did not do.  Further, Comcast seemed to place a premium on specifying the damages methodology, with the majority noting that—at least in antitrust cases—predominance requires plaintiffs to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the case is susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis.

Following Comcast's lead, the Court in Fort Worth held that the plaintiffs' expert failed to show that damages could be calculated in a manner common to the class.  Although the expert's proposed methodology appeared sufficiently linked to the plaintiffs' liability case, the Court held that "a more precise specification of the damages calculation method is necessary to assure that the model is in fact linked with the theory of liability."  For example, the expert stated he was "confident" in his ability to apply a damages model "that's applicable, systematically, for all members of the class."  That model would aim to value the Certificates—and the misstatements' effects thereon—either using market prices for comparable instruments, modeling expected cash flow from the underlying loans, or by using third party pricing (using benchmarks for prices kept by third-party providers like the Interactive Data Corporation).  But the Court held this was not enough because the expert had not in fact built the model.  Although the expert's methodology seemed plausible, his failure to proffer any concrete figures left the Court to wonder "how Plaintiffs plan to engage in the difficult process of valuing the complex asset-backed securities that underlie the Certificates."  Without building a specific model in concrete terms, the expert was essentially relying on his "say-so," which fell short of Comcast's heightened specificity requirement for showing predominance of common damages questions.

Here, the Court seemed to imply that if the expert had in fact built his contemplated model of damages, the plaintiffs would have shown that common damages questions predominated over individual issues.  But this seems to contradict the Court's statement, in the very next paragraph, that "no actual calculation needs to be performed at this stage."  It is, after all, hard to contemplate how the expert could have built a model for calculating damages without performing any calculations.

Bifurcating Class Certification: An Increasingly Common Practice

In any event, given Comcast's emphasis on damages calculations in the predominance analysis at the class certification stage, courts seem more willing to resort to bifurcating class actions—certifying as to liability but leaving the damages determination to the individual class members.  In fact, Judge Oetken—the Judge who decided Fort Worth—did the same thing in Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., 293 F.R.D. 578 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), an employment case where the Court decertified a class as to damages, but allowed it as to liability.  As in Fort Worth, the Jacob Court relied on Federal Rule 23(c)(4)—which permits courts to certify a class "with respect to particular issues"—and held that Comcast did not foreclose courts' ability to certify a class as to liability but not as to damages.  Thus, although Rule 23(c)(4) "cannot cure every ill that troubles a putative class," Jacob, 293 F.R.D. at 589, it seems Courts are relying on it more and more to salvage certain aspects of class actions in Comcast's wake.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions