Skip to content
DWT logo
People Expertise Insights
About Locations Careers
Search
People
Expertise
Insights
About
Locations
Careers
Search
Publications
Securities Litigation

Supreme Court Limits Securities Class Actions, But Not Fatally

By  Conner G. Peretti
July 2014
Share
Print this page

In its much-anticipated decision in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court declined to overturn the landmark Basic v. Levinson decision, but ruled that defendants in securities law class actions may rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance before the class certification stage by showing a lack of price impact. This seemingly small turn in the law may have significant practical effects on companies facing securities fraud class actions.

As we discussed here and here, Basic created the fraud-on-the-market theory, which underlies most securities class action cases. The theory provides for a presumption that investors relied on all public information released by a defendant as embodied in the price of its publicly-traded stock. Before Halliburton, defendants could not introduce evidence to directly rebut this presumption before class certification (e.g., that the alleged misrepresentation had no price impact or that the market did not efficiently absorb the information into the stock price).

In Halliburton, the Justices vacated and remanded the 5th Circuit’s decision, holding that defendants should be able to rebut the fraud-on-the-market theory presumption before class certification by showing evidence that an alleged misrepresentation did not, in fact, affect the stock’s price. The Supreme Court did not, however, issue the blockbuster ruling some observers were anticipating—eliminating the fraud-on-the-market theory altogether as a basis for securities class actions. Such a ruling would have had the likely impact of ending securities class actions as we currently know them. Note that enforcement actions brought by the SEC and DOJ are not reliant on the fraud-on-the-market doctrine and the decision therefore has no impact on them.

Related Articles

DWT logo
©1996-2022 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
NAVIGATE
Home People Expertise Insights
About Locations Careers Events Blogs
STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe to stay informed.

Subscribe
Employees
DWT Collaborate
EEO
Affiliations
Legal notices
Privacy policy
©1996-2022 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Close
Close

CAUTION - Before you proceed, please note: By clicking “accept” you agree that our review of the information contained in your e-mail and any attachments will not create an attorney-client relationship, and will not prevent any lawyer in our firm from representing a party in any matter where that information is relevant, even if you submitted the information in good faith to retain us.