United States: The "Fraud-On-The-Market" Presumption Of Reliance Revisited: Supreme Court Declines To Require Proof Of Materiality At Class Certification Stage

On February 27, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds1 ("Amgen"). The issue presented in Amgen was whether plaintiffs invoking the "fraud-on-the-market" presumption of reliance must establish the element of materiality before obtaining class certification in federal securities class actions. A divided Court held that the issue of materiality is a question common to the entire class in such a case, and therefore, materiality does not need to be proven as a prerequisite for class certification.

While the Court foreclosed direct challenges to the element of materiality at the class certification stage, the Court's opinion is noteworthy because it expressly left open the possibility that the Court would reconsider the "fraud-on-the-market" presumption of reliance altogether. The "fraud-on-the-market" presumption was established by the Court twenty-five years ago in Basic Inc. v. Levinson2 ("Basic"). If the presumption is revisited, it could dramatically change the landscape of federal securities class actions.

The Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption of Reliance

Under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 19343 and SEC Rule 10b-5,4 private plaintiffs must show they relied upon material misrepresentations in buying or selling a security. The judicially created fraud-on-the-market theory posits that defendants' material misrepresentations can defraud market participants by distorting the market price of the security at issue. Thus, the fraud-on-the-market presumption essentially allows plaintiffs in these cases to establish the reliance element indirectly, and on a class-wide basis, by demonstrating that certain predicates have been satisfied, including that the security at issue traded in an efficient market ("market efficiency") and that the alleged misrepresentation was made public ("publicity"). The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Amgen to address a circuit split as to whether the class proponent must also establish materiality as a condition precedent to invoking the Basic presumption of reliance.

The Supreme Court's Holding: Establishing the Element of Materiality Is Not a Prerequisite to Class Certification in a Fraud-on-the-Market Case

Writing for the majority, Justice Ginsburg explained that the key question in the case was not whether "materiality is an essential predicate of the fraud-on-the-market theory; indisputably it is. Instead, the pivotal inquiry [was] whether proof of materiality is needed to ensure that the questions of law or fact common to the class will predominate over any questions affecting only individual members."5

Materiality, the Court reasoned, is a matter of objective inquiry, meaning that it is subject to proof common to the class. Because materiality is also an essential element of a Rule 10b-5 claim, failure of proof on the issue ends the case "for one and for all,"6 demonstrating the commonality of the question of materiality. Consequently, the Court found that, while a securities plaintiff "certainly must prove materiality to prevail on the merits, . . . such proof is not a prerequisite to class certification."7

The Court noted that, unlike market efficiency and publicity, materiality is an indispensable element of a Rule 10b-5 claim. For the Court, "failure of proof on the issue of materiality . . . not only precludes a plaintiff from invoking the fraud-on-the-market presumption of classwide reliance; it also establishes as a matter of law that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the merits of her Rule 10b-5 claim."8 While failure of proof as to market efficiency or publicity might lead to individualized claims, failure of proof as to materiality "ends the case for the class and for all individuals alleged to compose the class."9 Thus, while market efficiency and publicity must be proven at the class certification stage, the Court reasoned that the element of materiality is more appropriately addressed by way of summary judgment or trial.10

Revisiting Basic: Justice Alito's Concurrence and the Dissents

Justice Ginsburg's opinion explicitly notes that a challenge to the validity of the Basic presumption was not before the Court, and that the case was "a poor vehicle for exploring [the efficacy] of the fraud on the market presumption of reliance."11 Thus, the majority opinion leaves open the possibility that the Court would revisit Basic in an appropriate case in the future, if securities class action defendants challenge the fundamental validity of that decision's fraud-on-the-market presumption.

Indeed, at least four Justices explicitly indicated a willingness to question that presumption. In a brief concurrence, Justice Alito acknowledged that the Basic presumption of reliance "may rest on a faulty economic premise," and stated that reconsideration of the presumption may be appropriate.12 Meanwhile, Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Scalia and Kennedy, stated that "[t]he Basic decision itself is questionable,"13 and seems poised to revisit the issue. Justice Thomas recognized that market efficiency may not be "a binary, yes or no question,"14 and voiced concern about the Court's ability to interpret and implement microeconomic theory. He noted that "[t]he Court retains discretion over the contours of Basic unless and until Congress sees fit to alter them – a fact Congress must also have realized when it passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 . . . and other legislation."15 These statements, particularly when read with those of Justice Alito, suggest that several members of the Court are poised to revisit Basic's holding – which could potentially undo the entire fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance.

Amgen's Impact on Class Certification in Securities Fraud Actions

Reading the Court's decisions in Halliburton, Matrixx, and Amgen together,16 it is fairly clear that to invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption and obtain class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), a securities fraud plaintiff must adequately allege materiality, and directly prove that (i) a security traded in an efficient market, (ii) a defendant made a public misstatement or omission regarding the security at issue during the relevant time period, and (iii) the class representative purchased the security during the relevant time period. Whether, and to what extent, materiality and loss causation may be indirectly involved in the consideration of these three items, however, is less clear.

Securities fraud defendants faced with the in terrorem effects of a certified class may more stringently contest whether a security traded in an efficient market with event studies and related empirical evidence. They may also more closely examine class periods at certification. And when and if a class is certified, Justice Ginsburg's opinion indicates that summary judgment is an appropriate procedure for disposing of those class claims where it can be shown that the market price for the security did not respond to the introduction of a supposedly "material" misstatement.

The Court's split decision in Amgen revealed that several Justices on the Court may be willing to revisit the twenty-five-year-old Basic presumption of reliance and likely set the stage for a future challenge to the Court's holding in that case.17 Contemporary economic theory has indeed cast doubt on the very concept of market efficiency, which has provided the central underlying rationale for the fraud-on-the-market doctrine. Perhaps most significantly, then, Amgen may portend a fundamental attack on the fraud-on-the-market doctrine altogether.


1 No. 11-1085, --- S. Ct. ----, 2013 WL 691001 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2013).

2 485 U.S. 224 (1988).

3 15 U.S.C. § 78j (2006 & Supp. 2010).

4 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (2012).

5 Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 2013 WL 691001, at *8 (emphasis in original).

6 Id. at *8. The Court termed this failure of proof "a fatal similarity." Id. at *9.

7 Id. at *4. As a corollary to finding that direct proof of materiality is not required at the class certification stage, the Court also determined that courts need not consider rebuttal evidence proffered by the securities fraud defendant. See id. at *15.

8 Id. at *11.

9 Id.

10 Id. at *9.

11 Id. at *10 n.6.

12 Id. at *16.

13 Id. at *19 n.4 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

14 Id.

15 Id. at *22 n.9.

16 The Halliburton decision held that plaintiffs need not show loss causation at class certification. Erica P. John Fund Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 131 S. Ct. 2179 (2011). Matrixx determined that materiality is not a bright-line rule, and returned to Basic's holding that materiality is proven when there is "a substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the 'total mix' of information made available." Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 131 S. Ct. 1309, 1318 (quoting Basic, 485 U.S. at 238).

17 To grant certiorari, four Justices must vote in favor of hearing a particular matter. See Hearing on S. 2060 and S. 2061 Before a Subcomm. of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 29 (1924) (testimony of Van Devanter, J.).

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on in that way. Specific 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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must 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