US Supreme Court issues major securities class action ruling
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs in securities fraud cases do not have to establish materiality before a class can be certified based on the “fraud-on-the-market” theory. Instead, in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, six Justices agreed that materiality is a substantive element of plaintiffs’ fraud claim that can be postponed until summary judgment or trial because it can always be addressed with common proof.
The Court’s holding reaffirmed the Court’s view that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 is primarily concerned with whether a class is “sufficiently cohesive” so that its common questions can be resolved with common answers, and clarified that investigating the merits of a substantive claim in fraud-on-the-market cases is only appropriate at the class certification stage when it is necessary to ensure that all Rule 23 requirements are met…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
Why register to The Lawyer
More relevant to you
News from Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
The decision of the US Court of Appeals has raised questions about how issuers should present their disclosures on conflict minerals under Exchange Act Rule 13p-1 and Form SD.
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth.
Analysis from The Lawyer
As international firms question their future in these small, closely linked markets, local lawyers too are eyeing the business environment with caution
Beyond the headline infrastructure projects, UK construction work is still recovering from the clobbering it took during the slump