United States: Eighth Circuit Breathes Life Into Halliburton's Price Impact Defense

The first Circuit Court of Appeals decision applying the Supreme Court's landmark 2014 decision in  Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2398 (2014) ("Halliburton II"), favored the defendants, finding as a matter of law that Best Buy Co. and its executives successfully rebutted the presumption of reliance set forth in Basic v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988) at the class certification stage through evidence of a lack of price impact from their alleged misstatements.  See IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et al., Case No. 14-3178 (8th Cir. Apr. 12, 2016).  By reversing the district court and holding that a class could not be certified, the Eighth Circuit showed that Halliburton II provides defendants with a meaningful opportunity to challenge the fraud on the market presumption.  The plaintiffs' bar, however, will be eager to highlight Best Buy's unique pattern in trying to limit the impact of the decision beyond this case.  Whether other federal courts follow the Eighth Circuit's lead and deny class certification motions based on Halliburton II in greater numbers, and outside the Best Buy fact pattern, remains to be seen.

Plaintiffs' claims against Best Buy arose out of three statements made on September 14, 2010.  The first was a statement in an 8:00 a.m. earnings release that the company was increasing its full year earnings per share guidance by ten cents to $3.55-$3.70.  Best Buy's stock, which closed the prior day at $34.65, then opened at 9:30 a.m. trading up at $37.25.  The next two statements were in a 10:00 AM conference call with securities analysts.  During that call, Best Buy's CEO and CFO stated (1) that the company's earnings were "essentially in line with our original expectations for the year" and (2) that Best Buy was "on track to deliver and exceed our annual EPS guidance."  Best Buy's common stock closed on September 14 at $36.73.  Plaintiffs alleged that these statements were untrue and that the truth was disclosed on December 14, 2010, when Best Buy announced a decline in its fiscal third quarter sales and a reduction in its 2011 fiscal year EPS guidance to $3.20-$3.40.  Best Buy's common stock – which had risen to $41.70 on December 13 – closed on December 14 at $35.52.

The district court did not allow plaintiffs' claims to proceed as to all three statements.  In particular, the court dismissed their claims as to the EPS guidance in the earnings release because it was forward-looking and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language.  The court allowed the claims to proceed as to the two statements made during the analyst call.

Plaintiffs moved for class certification, invoking the rebuttable fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance.  To support their application of the presumption, Plaintiffs submitted an expert report containing an event study reflecting that Best Buy's stock increased in reaction to the three allegedly misleading statements.  The study did not, however, differentiate the price impact caused by each statement.  In response, Best Buy submitted its expert's event study opining that while the company's stock price increased after the non-actionable September 14 press release, the conference call statements had "no discernible impact on Best Buy's stock price," as the stock price after the conference call was identical to the price before the call.  In response, Plaintiffs' expert submitted a revised opinion that reflected that he agreed that the conference call statements did not create an immediate stock price increase because the "economic substance" of the misrepresentation was disclosed in the press release.  However, he opined that even though the press release did not contain any actionable misstatement, investors gave "great weight" to the release, and the false statements from the conference call maintained the inflated stock price until the December 14, 2010 corrective disclosures.

The district court granted the motion, holding that even though the conference call statements did not lead to an immediate rise in Best Buy's stock price, the statements could have further inflated the price, prolonged the inflation of the price, or slowed the rate of the price's decline.  It held that price impact could be shown by a decrease in price following a revelation of the fraud and that Best Buy failed to rebut the Basic presumption of reliance because it did not offer evidence "to show that Best Buy's stock price did not decrease when the truth was revealed."

In a 2-1 decision, the Eighth Circuit reversed.  Writing for the majority, Judge Loken held that Best Buy presented compelling evidence of a lack of a price impact that was capable of rebutting the Basic presumption.  In particular, the court focused on the opinion from plaintiffs' own expert that the economic substance of the conference call statements was "virtually the same" as that of the non-actionable press release and that there was an absence of price impact from the conference call statements.  The expert testimony that investors gave "great weight" to the non-actionable press release, combined with the absence of future price impact from the conference call and "common sense," constituted "overwhelming evidence" that investors did not rely on the alleged misstatements and were sufficient to rebut the Basic presumption.

The Eighth Circuit rejected plaintiffs' theory that the conference call statements created a gradual increase in the stock price between September 14 and December 14, 2010, finding it contrary to the very hypothesis of efficient capital markets upon which the Basic  presumption rests.  Similarly, the district court's reliance on the price drop as evidence of price impact ignored that the allegedly "inflated price" was, according to the plaintiffs' own expert, established by the non-actionable earnings release, not the subsequent statements on the analyst call.

Judge Murphy dissented, finding that the majority's decision failed to address Plaintiffs' reliance on the "price maintenance theory," through which they contended that the conference call statements fraudulently maintained the company's stock price and counteracted expected stock price declines.  In order to rebut the Basic  presumption of reliance under this theory, Best Buy would have had to produce evidence showing that the alleged misrepresentations did not counteract a price decline that would have otherwise occurred.  Because the company failed to produce this evidence, it did not rebut the presumption of reliance.  Judge Murphy disagreed with the premise of the majority's opinion that Best Buy's conference call statements were "virtually the same" as those made in the press release, given that the district court concluded that the press release was a non-actionable forward looking statement while the conference call statements were actionable statements of then-current fact.

Since the Supreme Court's decision in Halliburton II, securities fraud defendants have struggled to determine the amount, and type, of price impact evidence necessary to rebut the Basic presumption.  The Eighth Circuit's decision provides some helpful guidance, particularly in its rejection of the district court's holding that actionable price impact could be shown through a price drop upon disclosure of the alleged truth.  But the unusual circumstances in Best Buy – with a price jump in the two-hour window between a non-actionable statement and an actionable one – will certainly lead plaintiffs to argue that the decision's effect should be limited to cases with similar fact patterns, which are likely to be few and far between.  Further – as discussed in Judge Murphy's dissent – the Eighth Circuit's decision leaves open the question of whether, and how, securities fraud plaintiffs can use allegations that misrepresentations maintained a fraudulently inflated price to invoke the Basic presumption, despite the absence of an immediate price impact.

Orrick will continue to monitor decisions analyzing and applying Halliburton II.

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.

Events from this Firm
26 Sep 2018, Seminar, Tokyo, Japan

Orrick’s Global Japan Practice is hosting a series of “Orrick Library” seminars to explore legal issues in various fields in Japan as well as the United States, Asia and Europe

26 Sep 2018, Conference, New York, United States

Employment Partner, Mandy Perry and Chair of Orrick's Global Employment Law Practice, Mike Delikat will be participating in the Global Business Protections 2018: International Restrictive Covenants and Confidential Information Conference.

10 Oct 2018, Conference, Florida, United States
Julie Totten is Program Chair of this year’s conference, Lynne Hermle is speaking on women in the courtroom, boardroom, and c-suite, and Erin Connell is speaking on pay equity and pay transparency.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
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