In a decision reversing the certification of six class actions against underwriters for Federal Securities violations, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals took the opportunity to explain (at least that panel’s well-reasoned view of) the apparent split of authority regarding a court’s ability to consider the “merits” at the class certification stage. First, the panel addresses the U.S. Supreme Court’s statement in Eisen that “we find nothing in either the language or history of Rule 23 that gives a court any authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the merits of a suit in order to determine whether it may be maintained as a class action” by noting that the “oft-quoted statement from Eisen was made in a case in which the district judge’s merits inquiry had nothing to do with determining the requirements for class certification” and hence “there is no basis for thinking that a specific Rule 23 requirement need not be fully established just because it concerns, or even overlaps with, an aspect of the merits.” The panel then notes that the 2003 Amendments to Rule 23(c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(C) “arguably combine to permit a more extensive inquiry into whether Rule 23 requirements are met than was previously appropriate.” In light of the foregoing, the panel concluded that: (1) a district judge may certify a class only after making determinations that each of the Rule 23 requirements has been met; (2) such determinations can be made only if the judge resolves factual disputes relevant to each Rule 23 requirement; (3) the obligation to make such determinations is not lessened by overlap between a Rule 23 requirement and a merits issue, even a merits issue that is identical with a Rule 23 requirement; (4) in making such determinations, a district judge should not assess any aspect of the merits unrelated to a Rule 23 requirement; and (5) a district judge has discretion to circumscribe both the extent of discovery and the scope of the hearing in order to assure that a class certification motion does not become a pretext for a partial trial of the merits. See In re IPO Sec. Lit., 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006).