On December 16, 2003, Judge Harrington of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in In re: Eaton Vance Corp. Securities Litigation, No. CIV.A. 01-10911-EFH that one of the proposed class representatives in plaintiffs' motion for class certification--Mr. Macy--was precluded from serving as such a representative because he failed to file a certification with the complaint, as required by the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(2)(A).

Under this provision of the PSLRA, each plaintiff seeking to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class must provide a sworn certification, personally signed by such plaintiff and filed with the complaint, that provides numerous assurances such as that the plaintiff has reviewed the complaint and authorized its filing; that the plaintiff did not purchase the security that is the subject of the complaint at the direction of plaintiff's counsel or in order to participate in any private action; that the plaintiff is willing to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class, including providing testimony at deposition and trial, if necessary; that the certification lists all of the transactions of the plaintiff in the security that is the subject of the complaint during the class period specified in the complaint; that it lists any other securities class actions filed during the 3-year period preceding the date on which the certification is signed by the plaintiff, in which the plaintiff has sought to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class; and that the plaintiff will not accept any payment for serving as a representative party on behalf of a class beyond the plaintiff's pro rata share of any recovery.

Plaintiffs argued that the PLSRA certification requirement pertained only to the selection of a lead plaintiff, not class certification, and that because their motion involved class certification, these requirements were irrelevant. The Court disagreed, stating that

Section 77z-1(a) states that "the provisions of this subsection shall apply to each private action ... that is brought as a plaintiff class action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." That is precisely what Macy is seeking to do in this lawsuit. In addition, the particular subsection involving the certification requirement explicitly states that it applies to "[e]ach plaintiff seeking to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class...." 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(2)(A). There is no language in this subsection limiting the certification requirement to lead plaintiffs only.

Accordingly, the Court ruled that (1) Macy was precluded from serving as a class representative, and (2) because Macy was the only named plaintiff who purchased shares in the Prime Rate fund (one of four funds sued), plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to that particular fund was denied.