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
 
In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Emails

From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.