Opinion ID: 380380
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Class Certification Claim.

Text: 31 The Shapiros argue that, regardless of the merits of their individual and class claims, the district court erred in refusing to certify a class of all persons (except the appellees and their families) who owned Midwest common stock on March 20, 1975. 17 The proposed class would have included all those who exchanged their shares for subordinated debentures pursuant to the March 20, 1975, exchange offer, or participated in the subsequent cash tender offer. 32 Initially, we note that a trial court has broad discretion in determining whether a class action may be maintained, and its determination will not be overturned absent a showing that it abused that discretion. Wright v. Stone Container Corp., 524 F.2d 1058, 1061 (8th Cir. 1975); Polin v. Conductron Corp., 552 F.2d 797, 802 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 857, 98 S.Ct. 178, 54 L.Ed.2d 129 (1977); Rule v. Intern. Ass'n of Bridge, Etc., Workers, 568 F.2d 558, 563 (8th Cir. 1977). This discretion extends to defining the scope of the class. After reviewing the record in this case, we are unpersuaded that the court abused its discretion in refusing to certify the class requested by the Shapiros. 33 Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) sets forth four prerequisites to a class action: 1) numerosity of the class, 2) common questions of law or fact, 3) typicality of the representatives' claims or defenses, and 4) adequacy of representation. The district court found that, while the Shapiros' proposed class satisified the requirements of numerosity and common questions, the fact that the Shapiros had not exchanged their stock in response to the allegedly unlawful exchange offer rendered their claims atypical and their representation suspect. 18 Accordingly, the court restricted the plaintiff class to those Midwest shareholders who did not exchange their shares in response to the 1975 exchange offer, later amended to exclude also those who did not participate in the later cash tender offer. 19 34 As we held above, the Shapiros have failed to establish that they were harmed by any of the acts of which they complain. In East Texas Motor Freight v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 97 S.Ct. 1891, 52 L.Ed.2d 453 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a class representative must be part of the class and 'possess the same interest and suffer the same injury' as the class members. Id. at 403, 97 S.Ct. at 1896 (citations omitted). In that case, as here, the named plaintiffs could have suffered no injury as a result of the alleged (unlawful) practices, and they were, therefore, simply not eligible to represent a class of persons who did allegedly suffer injury. Id. at 403-04, 97 S.Ct. at 1897. It follows that the district court acted properly in refusing to certify the Shapiros as representatives of a class including participants in the 1975 exchange offer. 20 35 Accordingly, we affirm.