United States: Litigation Alert: Supreme Court Rejects Fifth Circuit’s Requirement That Plaintiffs In A Securities Fraud Litigation Prove Loss Causation In Order To Obtain Class Certification

Last Updated: June 14 2011
Article by Mintz Levin Litigation Group

On June 6, 2011, the Supreme Court, in Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. ___ (2011), held that securities fraud plaintiffs do not need to prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification.  Prior to this decision, the Fifth Circuit imposed an exceedingly high burden on plaintiffs at the class certification stage, requiring a plaintiff to prove that the defendant's conduct caused an economic loss.  The decision rejected the Fifth Circuit's practice and supported the Second, Third, and Seventh Circuits' holdings that proof of loss causation is not a prerequisite to invoking the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance.

The Fraud-on-the-Market Theory

In general, when a plaintiff alleges a securities fraud based on violations of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5, the plaintiff has the burden of proving (1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase and sale of a security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation.1  In addition to these requirements, when plaintiffs proceed as a class, it is their burden to prove that common issues predominate over individual ones.2

In securities fraud class actions, the predominance requirement presents a potential obstacle to class certification because proving that class members reasonably relied on the specific misrepresentations that are the subject of the lawsuit would ordinarily require individual factual inquiries that would overwhelm questions of fact that are common to the class as a whole.3  In Basic v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), the Supreme Court accepted the fraud-on-the-market theory as a practical resolution to this problem.  Under the fraud-on-the-market theory, if the subject security trades in an efficient market, there is a rebuttable presumption that the price of the security incorporates all material information about that security that is available to the market and that investors accordingly relied upon the misstatements or omissions of the issuer.4

In order to invoke the fraud-on-the-market theory of reliance, plaintiffs must first prove that the security traded in an efficient market; that the misrepresentations were publicly made; and the misrepresentations were material.  Once a plaintiff invokes the fraud-on-the-market theory, "any showing that severs the link between the alleged misrepresentation and either the price received (or paid) by the plaintiff, or his decision to trade at a fair market price, will be sufficient to rebut the presumption of reliance."5

Loss Causation

The Supreme Court has described loss causation as the "casual connection between the material misrepresentation and the loss. . . ."6 As one of the elements of a securities fraud claim based on violations of § 10(b) or Rule 10b-5, securities fraud plaintiffs must prove this connection in order to succeed on their claim.  The burden of proving loss causation is not satisfied by proof that a material misstatement or omission inflated the purchase price of a stock.7  Rather, the plaintiff must prove "that a misrepresentation that affected the integrity of the market price also caused a subsequent economic loss."8

Application of Loss Causation to the Fraud-on-the-Market Theory

Loss causation, while a well-established requirement for recovery of damages in a case alleging securities fraud, has not traditionally been relevant to class certification.  Prior to the Supreme Court's decision, the Fifth Circuit was the only court of appeals to make proof of loss causation a precondition to invoking the fraud-on-the-market theory at the class certification.  In Oscar Private Equity Investments v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc., 487 F.3d 261, 269 (5th Cir. 2007), the Fifth Circuit held that a securities fraud plaintiff must prove loss causation before it could invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption.  Loss causation, the court explained, "speaks to the semi-strong efficient market hypothesis on which classwide reliance depends . . . ."9

In Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton Co., the Fifth Circuit applied the loss causation requirement established by Oscar Private Equity to deny certification of a securities class action brought against Halliburton Co. and one of its executives (collectively "Halliburton") on behalf of all investors who purchased Halliburton common stock between June 3, 1999 and December 7, 2001.  The plaintiff alleged that Halliburton deliberately made false statements about (1) the scope of its potential liability in asbestos litigation; (2) its expected revenue from certain construction contracts; and (3) the benefits of its merger with another company.  The district court, applying Fifth Circuit precedent, denied class certification because the plaintiff could not prove loss causation.  But for the plaintiff's inability to prove loss causation, the court would have certified the class.10

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision.  The court reasoned that the applicability of the fraud-on-the-market presumption required proof not only that the price at which securities were purchased was affected by the effect of fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions on an efficient market, but also that there was a causal link between such misrepresentations or omissions in the form of a price change associated with correction of the misleading statements.  This requirement—one which no other circuit court imposed—constituted an exceedingly high burden for plaintiffs seeking class certification.

Other circuits declined to follow the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit.  The Second Circuit, for example, held that, "plaintiffs do not bear the burden of showing an impact on price" when moving for class certification.11  The court explained, "[t]he point of Basic is that an effect on market price is presumed based on the materiality of the information and a well-developed market's ability to readily incorporate that information into the price of securities."12  Although the Second Circuit's opinion did not specifically address the Fifth Circuit's precedent, the court's holding conflicted with it.

While the plaintiff's petition for certiorari was pending, the Seventh Circuit weighed-in on the application of loss causation to the fraud-on-the-market theory.  In Schleicher v. Wendt, 618 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2010), the Seventh Circuit explicitly disapproved of the Fifth Circuit's standard:

Oscar Private Equity represents a go-it-alone strategy by the [F]ifth [C]ircuit.  It is not compatible with this circuit's decisional law . . . and we disapprove its holding.13

Most recently, the Third Circuit also addressed this issue, and reached a similar conclusion to that held by the Seventh Circuit:

We do not think plaintiffs must establish loss causation as a prerequisite to invoking the presumption of reliance in the first instance.  Accordingly, we decline to require plaintiffs to demonstrate loss causation at class certification.14

In order to resolve the conflict among the circuits as to whether securities fraud plaintiffs must prove loss causation prior to obtaining class certification, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's petition for certiorari.15

The Supreme Court Unanimously Rejected the Fifth Circuit's Loss Causation Requirement

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Fifth Circuit erred by imposing the requirement that plaintiffs must prove loss causation prior to class certification.  Specifically, the Court held, "[the Fifth Circuit's] requirement is not justified by Basic or its logic . . . ."  "Such a rule" the Court said, "contravenes Basic's fundamental premise—that an investor presumptively relies on a misrepresentation so long as it was reflected in the market price at the time of his transaction."16  The Court also provided guidance to courts applying the fraud-on-the-market theory, noting that before invoking the rebuttable presumption of reliance, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the alleged misrepresentations were publicly known, that the stock traded in an efficient market, and that the relevant transaction took place between the time the misrepresentations were made and the time the truth was revealed.17

Whether or not correction of misrepresentations resulted in a change in the price of securities simply is not relevant to the question of whether the price at which the security was purchased may be deemed to have incorporated such misrepresentation, thereby permitting a plaintiff to establish class wide reliance by proof common to the class as a whole.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Implications of Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton Co.

The Supreme Court's decision removes a significant obstacle to securities class actions within the Fifth Circuit and provides guidance to all jurisdictions applying the fraud-on-the-market theory.  It also provides an outer bound to the extent to which federal courts may examine merits issues at the class certification stage.  As far back as its decision in Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974), the Supreme Court cautioned against conditioning decisions under Rule 23 on an evaluation of which party would be likely to prevail on the merits.  The Court subsequently explained in General Telephone Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982), that courts must engage in a "rigorous analysis" of whether the requirements of Rule 23 have been met before a class may be certified and that such analysis should address merits-related issues to the extent necessary to determine whether the requirements of the rule have been satisfied.

Recent circuit court decisions applying Falcon have directed trial courts to go beyond allegations in plaintiffs' complaints in order to evaluate whether merits issues may be tried and resolved by proof that is common to the class as a whole. Although the Court does not cite Eisen or Falcon, its decision nonetheless makes clear is that the trial court's obligation to evaluate how merits issues will be tried does not allow a trial court to condition class certification on proof that the plaintiff can satisfy a substantive element of the plaintiff's cause of action.

This ruling does not, as the Supreme Court points out, diminish the significance of loss causation as a substantive requirement for the recovery of damages in a securities fraud case.  Nor does this decision eliminate other potentially successful grounds for defeating class certification by challenging the fraud-on-the-market presumption, including establishing that the subject securities are not traded in an efficient market.

If you would like to discuss the Erica P. John Fund decision or other matters concerning securities or class action litigation, please contact any member of Mintz Levin's Securities Litigation or Class Action Practice Groups.


1  See, e.g., Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. ___, ___, slip op., at 4 (2011).

2  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

3  Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 242 (1988).

4  See, e.g, In re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litig., 544 F.3d 474, 481 (2d Cir. 2008).

5  Basic, 485 U.S.at 248.

6  Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 341 (2005).

7  Id. at 342-343.

8  Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. ___, ___, slip op., at 7 (2011) (emphasis in original).

9  Oscar Private Equity Inv. v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc., 487 F.3d 261, 269 (5th Cir. 2007).

10  Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. ___, ___, slip op., at 2 (2011).

11  In re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litig., 544 F.3d at 483.

12  Id. (emphasis in original).

13  Schleicher v. Wendt, 618 F.3d 679, 687 (7th Cir. 2010).

14  In re DVI, Inc. Sec. Litig., ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1125926, at *7 (3d Cir. Mar. 29, 2011).

15  Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. ___, ___, slip op., at 3 (2011).

16  Id. at 6.

17  Id. at 5-6.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions