United States: Does Precedent or Congressional Action Prevent the Supreme Court from Reconsidering the Fraud-on-the Market Doctrine in Halliburton?

Keywords: private securities class actions, Securities Exchange Act, securities fraud

The Supreme Court will grapple with private securities class actions when it hears oral argument tomorrow in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. The principal question in the case is the continuing validity of the fraud-on-the-market doctrine, endorsed by the Court twenty-five years ago in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, which relieves plaintiffs asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of the obligation to prove actual reliance, and permits the reliance element of a securities fraud claim to be satisfied presumptively by proof that the securities at issue traded on an efficient market.

A significant part of the debate in the Halliburton briefs addresses new scholarship contradicting the views of economists who developed the hypothesis underlying fraud-on-the-market. That is precisely what Justice White predicted in his Basic dissent: "[W]hile the economists' theories which underpin the fraud-on-the-market presumption may have the appeal of mathematical exactitude and scientific certainty, they are—in the end—nothing more than theories which may or may not prove accurate upon further consideration. . . . I doubt we are in much of a position to assess which theories aptly describe the functioning of the securities industry."

But the defenders of fraud-on-the-market, perhaps recognizing the doctrine's tenuous status based on the economic learning over the past quarter-century, focus considerable attention on three arguments unrelated to the doctrine's merits:

  • Principles of stare decisis prevent the Court from overturning Basic;
  • Congress ratified Basic's endorsement of fraud-on-the-market when it enacted the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act; and
  • Securities class actions benefit investors and, because they would be harder to bring if Basic were overturned, the Court should leave fraud-on-the-market in place.

To spare readers (and myself) an exegesis into economic analysis, this post focuses on these contentions, explaining why a fair appraisal of these arguments in fact demonstrates that the Court is obligated to assess Basic on the merits, and overrule the decision if the fraud-on-the-market presumption can no longer be justified.

Stare Decisis

The Supreme Court has frequently stated that the principle of stare decisis—respect for precedent—has special force in the context of statutory interpretation, because Congress has the power to alter the Court's decisions through subsequent legislation.

But was Basic really a statutory interpretation case? No, it was not.

Section 10(b) does not create a private cause of action. The statute simply makes it "unlawful" to "use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security . . . any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the [Securities and Exchange Commission] may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors."

Not a word about lawsuits by private parties, where such lawsuits may be brought, the elements that a plaintiff must prove in order to prevail, the measure of damages—nothing. All of that has been "implied" by courts from this short congressional enactment. The private cause of action is, in the Supreme Court's own words, "a judicial oak which has grown from little more than a legislative acorn."

Given that courts have created the rules of 10(b) litigation—indeed, invented the entire area of litigation—should the precedents establishing those rules have the same status as more routine statutory interpretation decisions?

There is a clear line of Supreme Court decisions demonstrating that the answer is "no"—specifically, the cases in which the Court has overruled prior decisions under the antitrust laws.

Most types of antitrust liability rest on Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Section 1 states in relevant part, "[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." Interpreting the phrase "restraint of trade," the Supreme Court has prescribed a complex set of principles that govern antitrust liability.

Even though antitrust law is based on a statute, the Court has been much more willing to overrule antitrust precedents. In its most recent decision overturning a prior antitrust decision, Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., the Court explained why:

Stare decisis is not as significant in this case, however, because the issue before us is the scope of the Sherman Act. [State Oil v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997)] ("[T]he general presumption that legislative changes should be left to Congress has less force with respect to the Sherman Act"). From the beginning the Court has treated the Sherman Act as a common-law statute. . . . . Just as the common law adapts to modern understanding and greater experience, so too does the Sherman Act's prohibition on "restraint[s] of trade" evolve to meet the dynamics of present economic conditions.

The Court has overturned a significant number of antitrust precedents under this standard, including two in just the last eight years.

Basic was much more an exercise of the Court's common-law authority than any antitrust decision—the private cause of action under Section 10(b) is entirely a judicial creation without any authorization from Congress even to engage in that enterprise. Indeed, the Court has explained that "[t]he federal courts have accepted and exercised the principal responsibility for the continuing elaboration of the scope of the 10b–5 right and the definition of the duties it imposes." The much more relaxed stare decisis standard that the Court employs in the antitrust context is therefore plainly applicable here.

If the Court concludes that Basic erred in endorsing the fraud-on-the-market doctrine, therefore, stare decisis presents no barrier to overruling that determination.

Congressional Ratification

If Congress "ratifies" or "acquiesces" in a judicial interpretation of a statute, courts lack the power to change it. In 1995, Congress enacted the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), which imposed a variety of procedural requirements on securities class actions in an attempt to curb the filing of abusive lawsuits that harmed investors.

Did the PSLRA ratify Basic?

Again, the answer is "no," for three reasons.

First, Congress considered a variety of approaches to fraud-on-the-market, but ended up adopting none of them. The bill introduced in the House of Representatives would have abolished the doctrine, but the bill ultimately passed by the House would have codified a modified version of the Basic rule. The Senate-passed bill did not mention fraud-on-the-market, and neither did the bill produced by the House-Senate conference committee that was enacted into law.

Does the failure to enact the House-passed codification of Basic mean that Congress rejected the Basic rule? Does the failure to enact the House-introduced bill mean that Congress endorsed Basic?

The only logical conclusion is that Congress intended to take no action with respect to fraud-on-the market one way or the other. That is especially true in light of the Supreme Court's repeated injunction that courts should be reluctant to infer anything from congressional inaction—because all there is in the record with respect to fraud-on-the-market is congressional inaction.

Second, when Congress intended to codify a substantive liability rule in the PSLRA, it did so expressly. For example, Section 105 of the PSLRA specifically codifies the judicially-created requirement that a plaintiff prove loss causation. There is no such express ratification of fraud-on-the-market in the PSLRA, or even any mention of reliance.

Third, the PSLRA does not apply only to securities class actions under Section 10(b)—it governs all class actions under the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act. (In addition to the judicially-created Section 10(b) claim, there are numerous private causes of action expressly created by Congress in both statutes—many of which are invoked as the basis for class actions.) Given the broad scope of the legislation, there is no basis whatsoever to conclude that Congress focused specifically on the standards for liability under the Section 10(b) implied cause of action, let alone that Congress approved them.

The Claimed Benefits of Securities Class Actions

Even if fraud-on-the market is wrong as a matter of economics, should it stay in place because it facilitates securities class actions and eliminating the doctrine would deprive investors of the benefits of these lawsuits?

Again, the answer is a resounding "no."

The simple fact is that the harm that today's securities class actions inflict on investors far outweighs any potential benefit. That isn't just my opinion—it's the view of many academics and former government officials who have studied these cases. A comprehensive discussion of the issue is available here (pdf).

A recent study (pdf) released by the Institute for Legal Reform of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce confirms that conclusion, demonstrating that the filing of securities class action lawsuits decrease investors' wealth by $39 billion each year—typically harming the very same investors who are included as plaintiff class members. Those losses far outweigh the $5 billion in settlement proceeds that are distributed to investors. (As the authors of the study note, I reviewed and offered comments on the study.)

* * * * *

Even if the Court has the power to reconsider Basic, and even if the evidence tends to show that securities class actions do more harm than good, some may say that the Court still should refuse to act, because "this is an issue for Congress to address."

But the Court imposed the fraud-on-the-market rule based on its own common-law authority, not as the result of any direction from Congress. If that rule doesn't make sense, the Court has a responsibility to withdraw it.

More fundamentally, history teaches that Congress is highly unlikely to face up to these issues if Basic is left in place.

The PSLRA was a direct result of the Court's 1991 decision in Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, which prescribed the statute of limitations applicable to Section 10(b) claims. Because Lampf altered the prevailing rule in the lower courts, the plaintiffs' bar sought Congress's intervention to overturn the Court's decision. Congress did eliminate Lampf's effect on pending cases, but the debate over the proper statute of limitations led Congress to hold hearings on the abuses of securities class actions, which in turn led to enactment of the PSLRA.

Leaving Basic intact provides no reason for Congress to revisit the status quo. Overturning Basic is the only effective means of focusing Congress's attention on these important policy issues.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2014. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

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