United States: Eighth Circuit Denies Class Certification In Securities Fraud Suit, Finding The "Fraud-On-The-Market" Presumption Of Reliance Did Not Apply Under Halliburton II

Last Updated: April 21 2016
Article by James J. Beha, II and Justin D. Mayer

On April 12, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a significant decision denying class certification in a federal securities fraud action, holding that the defendants had rebutted the fraud-on-the-market presumption of class-wide reliance. IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc.,1 is the first federal appellate court decision denying class certification in a federal securities case under the Supreme Court's Halliburton II decision and provides useful guidance for defendants seeking to defeat class certification in federal securities class actions by rebutting the fraud-on-the-market presumption.


Investors pursuing claims for securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 must prove that they relied on an alleged misrepresentation in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. In theory, the requirement to prove that each individual investor actually relied on an allegedly fraudulent statement about a company when deciding whether to invest in the company's securities would present individual questions potentially precluding certification of any Section 10(b) claims as class actions. Under decades-old Supreme Court precedent, however, if a company's stock traded in an efficient market, shareholder plaintiffs are entitled to a presumption of reliance, on the theory that investors rely on the integrity of a stock's market price and, in an efficient market, any public misstatement about the company is reflected in the market price, resulting in a "fraud on the market."2

In its 2014 decision in Halliburton II, the Supreme Court affirmed the continued validity of the "fraud-on-the-market" presumption of reliance, despite challenges to its theoretical underpinnings. The Court explained, however, that a defendant in a securities fraud action should have the opportunity at the class certification stage to rebut the presumption by showing the absence of "price impact." In other words, a defendant may rebut the presumption by showing that an alleged misstatement did not affect the stock's market price and, thus, investors could not prove reliance on the alleged misstatement by showing that the misstatement was reflected in the market price.3 As the Court explained, "if a defendant could show that the alleged misrepresentation did not, for whatever reason, actually affect the market price, . . . then the presumption of reliance would not apply."4

In Best Buy, the Eighth Circuit, applying Halliburton II, held that Best Buy had successfully rebutted the fraud-on-the-market presumption by showing a lack of price impact, and reversed the trial court's decision certifying the class.


The Best Buy case involved allegations that Best Buy's forward-looking guidance released in connection with its second quarter 2011 earnings announcements was fraudulent. Best Buy made the challenged statements both in a press release issued before the market opened on September 14, 2010, and in a conference call with stock analysts later that day. The trial court had previously held, however, that the statements in the company's press release were protected by the securities laws' safe harbor for "forward looking" statements.5 As a result, the only alleged misstatements still at issue in the case were those made during the analyst conference call later that same day.

The plaintiffs moved for class certification, relying on the fraud-on-the-market presumption of class-wide reliance. To support their motion, the plaintiffs submitted an expert report showing that Best Buy's stock traded in an efficient market and that the company's share price increased in reaction to the allegedly misleading statements on September 14. The plaintiffs' expert study did not differentiate between the effect of the statements in the press release and the later statements on the analyst conference call, however. In opposition to class certification, the defendants submitted an expert report finding that the price increase on September 14 occurred entirely in the hours after the company issued its press release but before the analyst conference call. Thus, the defendants argued, the plaintiffs could not demonstrate price impact with respect to the statements on the conference call, which were the only statements that were actionable under federal securities law. Nonetheless, the district court applied the fraud-on-the-market presumption and certified the class, finding that, even though the stock price may have been inflated before the analyst conference call, "the alleged misrepresentation could have further inflated the price, prolonged the inflation of the price, or slowed the rate of fall."

The Eighth Circuit reversed. As the court noted, under Halliburton II, a defendant may rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption with "evidence that severs the link between the alleged misrepresentation and either the price received (or paid) by the plaintiff, or his decision to trade at a fair market price."6 Based on both experts' reports, the court concluded that the defendants had severed the link between the alleged misstatements in the conference call and the market price by showing that any increase in the market price that day was caused by the earlier statements in the company's press release, which were "virtually the same" as the alleged misstatements during the conference call. And, because the court found that the plaintiffs could not prove class-wide reliance on the alleged misstatements in the conference call based on the fraud-on-the-market presumption, the court concluded that the plaintiffs "failed to satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), and the district court abused its discretion by certifying the class."7

The Eighth Circuit's decision in Best Buy was tied to the particular facts of that case. In Best Buy, where the company had made two virtually identical statements, only one of which was legally actionable, the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that the statements underlying their claims affected the stock price. Nonetheless, as the first post-Halliburton II appellate decision denying class certification, the decision provides important guidance for defendants seeking to defeat class certification by rebutting the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance. Securities fraud cases frequently involve multiple related statements by the defendants, only some of which may be actionable. Applying Best Buy, to invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption plaintiffs must show that the specific statements underlying their claims—and not other, related statements—affected the market price. And defendants may defeat class certification by demonstrating the absence of a link between the specific statements at issue in the case and the market price.


1 No. 14-3178 (8th Cir. April 12, 2016).

2 See Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 245 (1988) ("the market price of shares traded on well-developed markets reflects all publicly available information, and, hence, any material misrepresentations").

3 Halliburton Co., et al. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2398, 2415 (2014) ("Halliburton II").

4 Halliburton II, 134 S. Ct. at 2408.

5 The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act provides a safe harbor from liability for forward-looking statements that are identified as such and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c).

6 Best Buy, at *8 (quotation marks omitted).

7 Id. at *12-13. The dissent argued that the majority missapplied Haliburton II. According to the dissent, a showing that the alleged misrepresentation did not increase the stock price will only sever the link between the alleged misrepresentation and the market price where the plaintiff alleges that the misrepresentation fraudulently increased the stock price. In Best Buy, however, the plaintiffs relied on a "price maintenance" theory, arguing that the alleged misstatements in the conference call "confirmed" the prior misstatements in the press release and maintained Best Buy's stock price at its allegedly inflated level. To rebut the presumption under the "price maintenance" theory, the dissent would have required Best Buy to "produc[e] evidence showing that the alleged misrepresentations had not counteracted a price decline that would otherwise have occurred." Id. at *14.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

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.

James J. Beha, II
Justin D. Mayer
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