When the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari to take up class certification questions raised in the long-running Goldman Sachs securities class action lawsuit, some commentators thought the case might give the Court the opportunity to reconsider fundamental issues about the presumption of reliance under the “fraud on the market” theory in connection with class certification in securities suits. However, as the case has turned out, the Court’s consideration of the case has not produced any fundamental recasting of any key issues; instead, the Court on June 21, 2021 issued a narrow decision that the majority opinion itself acknowledged, with respect to the most significant substantive part of the Court’s opinion, will not be “outcome determinative” in many cases. The Court’s June 21, 2021 decision can be found here.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Vacates Class Certification in Goldman Sachs Securities Suit on Narrow Grounds
U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Take Up Securities Suit Class Certification Issues
In the same December 11, 2020 Order in which it rejected the bid by the Texas Attorney General to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election, the U.S. Supreme Court also agreed to take up a case involving the effort of Goldman Sachs to overturn the certification of a class in the long-running securities lawsuit. The case relates to the bank’s alleged conflicts of interest in structuring collateralized debt obligation securities before the global financial crisis. The case will require the Court to address important questions pertaining to the ability of securities lawsuit defendants opposing class certification to attempt to rebut the presumption of reliance and the extent to which the defendants in opposing class certification can rely on matter that is also relevant to merits-related issues such as materiality.
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Take Up Securities Suit Class Certification Issues
Guest Post: Second Circuit: Price Impact Evidence Not Always Necessary to Establish Market Efficiency
A recurring issue in securities cases involves the question of when plaintiffs may rely on the presumption of reliance under the fraud on the market doctrine. To invoke the presumption plaintiffs must show that the defendant company’s securities trade on an efficient market, which in turn raises the question of what the plaintiffs must show in order to demonstrate market efficiency. In the following guest post, attorneys from the Paul Weiss law firm review a recent Second Circuit decision on this issue, Waggoner v. Barclays PLC (here). I would like to thank the attorneys from the Paul Weiss law firm for allowing me to publish this article as a guest post. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the Paul Weiss attorneys’ guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Second Circuit: Price Impact Evidence Not Always Necessary to Establish Market Efficiency
Guest Post: Upcoming Appellate Decisions: Rebutting the Basic Presumption of Reliance
In its 2014 decision in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the presumption of reliance under the fraud on the market theory. The Court also held that at defendant may rebut the presumption of reliance by showing that the alleged misrepresentation at issue did not affect the defendant company’s share price. In the following guest post, David Topol and Jennifer Williams of the Wiley Rein law firm take a look at the way that the lower courts have applied the Court’s holding in the 2014 decision, and review some pending cases that could have important implications for this way that the decision is applied in the lower courts. I would like to thank David and Jen for their willingness to publish their article on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is David and Jen’s guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Upcoming Appellate Decisions: Rebutting the Basic Presumption of Reliance
Guest Post: Eight Circuit: Under Halliburton II, Defendants Successfully Rebut Fraud-on-the Market Presumption
In its June 2014 decision in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held, among other things, that in order to try to rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption in order to defeat class certification, defendants can contend that the allegedly corrective disclosure did not impact the defendants company’s share price. In an April 12, 2016 decision in IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., the Eight Circuit, applying Halliburton, held that the defendants had successfully rebutted the presumption in the case by demonstrating absence of price impact. In the following guest post, attorneys from the Paul Weiss law firm takes a look at the Eighth Circuit’s decision and considers its significance. I would like to thank the attorneys from the Paul Weiss firm for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the Paul Weiss attorneys’ guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Eight Circuit: Under Halliburton II, Defendants Successfully Rebut Fraud-on-the Market Presumption
Defendants Unable to Establish Absence of Price Impact, Class Certification Granted
In its long-awaited June 2014 decision in the Halliburton case, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to jettison the fraud on the market theory on which the presumption of reliance is based, but it did provide that defendants could attempt to rebut the presumption of reliance by showing that the alleged misrepresentation that is the basis
Guest Post: Halliburton: Procedures and Percentages Part II—Should We Expect Any Changes Following the Supreme Court’s Ruling?
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this week in the Halliburton case, questions have continued to swirl about the implications of the court’s decision. In the following guest post, Jennifer Spaziano of the Skadden law firm, takes a look at the impact the Halliburton decision will have on securities class action procedures, outcomes and
Halliburton: U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Overturn Basic, Allows Defendants to Rebut Presumption of Reliance
On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court released its long-awaited decision in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, in which the Court had taken up the question whether or not to set aside the presumption of reliance based on the fraud on the market theory that the Court first recognized in its
Guest Post: Halliburton: Procedures and Percentages—Why Did the Court Care and What Do They Mean?
The Halliburton case now before the U.S. Supreme Court could potentially change the securities class action litigation landscape in the United States, as the Court considers whether or not to dump the fraud on the market theory. However, based upon the oral argument in the case on Wednesday, March 5, 2014, it appears that the
U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in the Halliburton Case
On Wednesday March 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the closely watched Halliburton case, which, as discussed at length here, potentially could change the face of securities litigation. At issue is whether or not the Court will set aside the “fraud on the market” presumption of reliance at the class