MoneyGram Securities Fraud Class Action: Opposition to Motion to Certify Class & Redactions

U.S. District Court Judge David Doty won’t be deciding Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class against MoneyGram until after a class certification hearing set for Feburary 10, 2010 but the opposition to the motion, below, is of interest on at least a few levels.

First, the fact that MoneyGram is contesting class certification at all is of some interest but, unfortunately, raises issues far beyond the scope of this blog.  In a nutshell, class certification for 10b-5 shareholder class actions is  so pervasive (though obviously not universal).  However, contesting class certification under such circumstances rather than stipulating is also common.  Is it really worth it? The cost of such a motion is clearly in the tens of thousands of dollars and more likely in six-figures.  How often is a securities fraud class action disposed of at the class certification stage?

Second, the breadth of the redactions in the brief, below, is significant and certainly covers a great deal more than social security numbers or other personal/private information.  The redactions seriously compromise the public’s ability to assess the arguments made and the factual background of the disputed issues.  The redactions, generally, appear to obscure testimony regarding investment decisions and market analysis of named plaintiffs.  It would seem odd to me that plaintiffs would bring a lawsuit alleging securities fraud as a class action but then argue that the reasons for their investment may not be shared with the public and, more importantly, with the class they purport to represent.  It would seem odder still if the redactions were instigated by MoneyGram.
MoneyGram Opp Mot Certify