United States: Rebutting The Fraud-On-The-Market Presumption Of Reliance

Last Updated: September 11 2013
Article by Robert L. Hickok, Gay Parks Rainville and Min Choi

Thanks to two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013), and Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton, 131 S. Ct. 2179 (2011), plaintiffs in securities fraud class actions brought under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 do not need to prove two of the essential elements of their claim, loss causation and materiality, at the class certification stage. These two judicial alterations to the securities class-action playing field give plaintiffs a strategic advantage in obtaining class certification and, therefore, in increasing the potential settlement value of their claims. Yet, both decisions leave open the question of whether defendants can defeat class certification by rebutting the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance with evidence that defendants' alleged misrepresentations did not measurably impact the market price of the security at issue.

By way of background, to establish a Rule 10b-5 violation, a private plaintiff must prove that the defendant (a) made a misstatement or omission (b) of material fact (c) with scienter (fraudulent intent) (d) in connection with the purchase or sale of a security (e) upon which the plaintiff reasonably relied and (f) the plaintiff's reliance was the proximate cause of his or her injury (loss causation). If courts strictly applied the reliance requirement in the class action context, then common questions would not "predominate" for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(3) because each prospective class member would have to prove that he or she individually relied on the misrepresentation or omission at issue, and no class would ever be certified. Instead, courts allow plaintiffs to establish a rebuttable presumption of classwide reliance under the fraud-on-the-market theory adopted by the Supreme Court in Basic v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988). Under this theory, courts presume that all members of the putative class indirectly relied on the alleged misrepresentation or omission through their reliance on the stock's market price, so long as the lead plaintiff can show that the stock traded in an efficient market.

At first sight, the Supreme Court's decisions in Amgen and Halliburton appear to hinder the ability of a defendant to rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption at the class certification stage. The issues presented in Amgen and Halliburton arose through a spectrum of circuit splits. At one end of the spectrum was the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which required plaintiffs to prove both loss causation and materiality in order to certify a class under the fraud-on-the-market theory. (See Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund v. Halliburton, 597 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 2010); and Oscar Private Equity Investments v. Allegiance Telecom, 487 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 2007).) The Second Circuit also required plaintiffs to prove materiality at the class certification stage. (See In re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litigation, 544 F.3d 474 (2nd Cir. 2008).)

At the other end of the spectrum was the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds v. Amgen, 660 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2011), that to invoke the fraud-in-the-market presumption at the class certification stage, a Rule 10b-5 plaintiff need not prove that the alleged misrepresentations were material, and the Seventh Circuit's decision in Schleicher v. Wendt, 618 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2010), that class certification did not require proof of either materiality or loss causation. The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit in Halliburton and affirmed the Ninth Circuit in Amgen, holding that a plaintiff need not prove either loss causation or materiality to certify a class.

In contrast to the Fifth and Seventh circuits, the Third Circuit applied a middle-ground approach to class certification, which the Supreme Court's decisions in Amgen and Halliburton arguably left unaddressed. While the Third Circuit did not require plaintiffs to prove either loss causation or materiality in order to invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance at the class certification stage, it expressly permitted defendants to rebut the presumption and defeat certification by showing the absence of "price impact." (See In re DVI Securities Litigation, 639 F.3d 623, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2011).) In DVI, the court concluded that, whether a lack of price impact is due to market inefficiency or an absence of materiality, it nonetheless is inconsistent with the fraud-on-the-market theory. As the court explained:

"Evidence an allegedly corrective disclosure did not affect the market price undermines the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance for several reasons. 'An efficient market for good news is an efficient market for bad news.' A demonstration the market did not assimilate information about the security into the market price — either when the alleged misrepresentation occurred, or when an alleged corrective disclosure occurred — may undercut the general claim of market efficiency or demonstrate market inefficiency relating to the securities in issue.

"Even if a plaintiff could establish the market was efficient notwithstanding a lack of market impact, under our precedents the lack of market impact may indicate the misstatements were immaterial — a distinct basis for rebuttal."

When he served on the Third Circuit, Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion in In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation, 114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997), a precursor to the court's DVI decision. As Alito explained in Burlington, if a company's stock trades in an efficient market, and the alleged misrepresentations have no impact on the stock's price, then they are "immaterial as a matter of law." Consistent with Burlington, the Third Circuit in DVI determined that it was appropriate for courts to consider price impact at the class certification stage because, if the alleged misrepresentation is not material, then every putative class member's claim would fail on the merits and there would be no need to explore each plaintiff's individual reliance. Notably, in Amgen, Alito wrote a brief concurrence suggesting that it may be time to reconsider the fraud-on-the-market theory in light of research indicating that the theory may sometimes rest on a faulty premise. In support, Alito cited a law review article by Donald C. Langevoort, "Basic at Twenty: Rethinking Fraud on the Market," published in the Wisconsin Law Review in 2009, which discusses at length another Third Circuit price-impact case, In re Merck & Co. Securities Litigation, 432 F.3d 261 (3d Cir. 2005). Merck further cemented the Third Circuit's view that information is immaterial when the stock price does not react significantly to a corrective disclosure.

When the Supreme Court remanded Halliburton to the Fifth Circuit, the defendants, in Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton, 718 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 2013) ("Halliburton II"), attempted once again to defeat class certification, this time under the Third Circuit's price-impact approach. But the Fifth Circuit rejected the defendants' argument, explaining that, under the "analytical framework" of Amgen, determining at the class certification stage whether a misrepresentation had an impact on the stock price is essentially the same as deciding whether the misrepresentation was material. The decision in Halliburton II is not binding on other circuits, however, and, at the very least, creates some tension with the Third Circuit's decision in DVI.

In sum, challenges to class certification in securities fraud lawsuits may still be viable in the Third Circuit. Under DVI, district courts in this circuit may give defendants the opportunity at the class certification stage to rebut a presumption of fraud-on-the-market with lack of price-impact evidence. Plaintiffs will no doubt challenge this approach, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, citing Amgen, Halliburton and Halliburton II. Therefore, defense counsel should pursue a price-impact rebuttal at the appellate level only if the underlying evidence of lack of price impact is compelling enough to withstand scrutiny by the Supreme Court in a case of first impression.

Reprinted with permission from the September 3, 2013 issue of The Legal Intelligencer.

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.

Authors
Robert L. Hickok
Gay Parks Rainville
Min Choi
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
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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