On February 27, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds ("Amgen"). Amgen provided the Court with the opportunity to consider whether plaintiffs invoking the "fraud-on-the-market" presumption of reliance must establish the element of materiality before obtaining class certification in federal securities class actions.
A divided Court (6-3) held that the issue of materiality is a question common to the entire class, and therefore materiality does not need to be proved at the class certification stage. While the Court foreclosed challenges to materiality at the class certification stage, the Court's opinion left open the possibility that it would reconsider the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance altogether. The fraud-on-the-market presumption was established by the Court 25 years ago in Basic Inc. v. Levinson ("Basic"). If the presumption is revisited, it could prove to significantly alter the landscape of federal securities class actions.
This one-hour TeleBriefing will delve into the Court's opinion and assess the practical implications of the decision from the perspective of seasoned securities plaintiffs' and defense counsel. The panel will also discuss the broader ramifications of the Amgen decision, including the future of the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance and the Court's signal that it may revisit Basic.
What You Will Learn
- Practical implications of the decision for securities plaintiffs' and defense counsel
- The future of the "fraud-on-market" presumption of reliance
- Broad ramifications of the Amgen decision
Speaker: Joshua Yount, Mayer Brown LLP
For more information, please click on the button below.