BARBARA LYNN, District Judge
On June 15, 2001, Plaintiffs moved for class certification. The Court held a hearing on September 25, 2001, during which it determined that Plaintiffs satisfied all of the requirements for class certification imposed by FED. R. Civ. P. 23 except 23(a)(4), which requires the representative parties to show that they "will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." The Court found that it could not make a determination as to the adequacy of the putative class representatives, Messrs. Keith Dartley and Thomas Reif, until Plaintiffs presented evidence, in the form of the proposed class representatives' testimony, demonstrating that the representatives would actively represent the class and be in control of the litigation. See Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., 257 F.3d 475, 478 (5th Cir. 2001) ("`[T]he adequacy requirement [is one that] mandates an inquiry into . . . the willingness and ability of the representatives to take an active role in and control the litigation and to protect the interests of absentees.'").
Thus, on November 8, 2001, the Court held a telephone conference so that counsel for both parties could examine the putative class representatives on the adequacy issue. At the end of the telephone conference, the Court ordered both parties to submit letter briefs summarizing their positions on whether Messrs. Dartley and Reif should be found adequate to represent the interests of the absent class members. Defendants submitted their brief on November 15, 2001; Plaintiffs responded on November 20, 2001. After reviewing the arguments of both parties, and having taken into consideration the testimony given by both putative class representatives, the Court is of the opinion that it should GRANT Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, finding that both class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
As stated above, the Court has already found that Plaintiffs satisfied the numerosity, commonality, and typicality requirements imposed by Rule 23(a)(1)-(3), and have also shown in accordance with Rule 23(b)(3) that questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over questions affecting its individual members.
To satisfy the adequacy requirement of class certification, Plaintiffs must have shown that "`the representative[s] will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel.'" Id. at 482. Although "class representatives need not be legal scholars and are entitled to rely on counsel, plaintiffs do need to know more than that they were `involved in a bad business deal.'" Id. at 483. They should have an understanding of "the actions in which they are involved" which does not derive solely from knowledge acquired from their attorneys. Id. at 483 n. 18.
Although Messrs. Dartley and Reif did not demonstrate a complete knowledge of the action in which they are involved, they did seem to understand the basic legal premise for the suit — that the Defendants had made misstatements during the IPO — and promised to zealously represent the class and place absent class members' interests on a footing coequal with their own. The testimony also showed that the putative representatives had been contacted by Plaintiffs' counsel on several occasions, and that during those conversations counsel diligently sought to enlighten the class representatives on the progress of the suit, as well as seek approval for counsel's actions in connection with the litigation. Thus, despite Messrs. Dartley and Reif's lack of understanding of some of the finer points of the suit, the testimony showed that the representatives care about the progress of the case and are committed to maintaining an active role in the litigation, for both their sakes and those of the absent class members. On this basis, the Court finds that the putative class representatives meet the standard for adequacy set forth in the Fifth Circuit's recent opinion in Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., 257 F.3d 475, 478 (5th Cir. 2001). Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
SO ORDERED.