Halliburton Watch: Let’s Start With The Basics

by Orrick - Securities Litigation and Regulatory Enforcement Group
Contact

http://blogs.orrick.com/securities-litigation/files/2012/10/iStock_000003035945XSmall-200x150.jpgOn March 5, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., Case No. 13-317, and we are certain our blog readers are eagerly awaiting the Court’s ruling.  The case has potentially far-ranging implications for the survival of the Court’s landmark ruling in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), which relied on the efficient market hypothesis to create the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance on misrepresentations.  This post provides background on the history of the Halliburton litigation and is the first in a series of posts that will analyze the arguments by the parties and amici, the Court’s ruling, and the potential implications for future litigation.

Plaintiff-Respondent Erica P. John Fund, Inc. is a not-for-profit group that supports the outreach work of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.  The Fund purchased stock in Halliburton Company and lost money when Halliburton’s stock price dropped following negative news regarding Halliburton’s (1) potential liability in asbestos litigation, (2) revenue accounting on fixed-price construction contracts, and (3) merger with Dresser Industries.  The Fund sued Halliburton and its CEO David Lesar alleging that they had previously made fraudulent misrepresentations concerning those topics in violation of §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The Fund sought to certify a class of plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which requires that “the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.”  2008 WL 4791492 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2008).  The Fund relied on the Basic presumption of class-wide reliance to satisfy its showing that the question of reliance was predominantly common.  In opposing class certification, Defendants did not challenge the Basic presumption.  Instead, they argued that the Fund failed to show loss causation under the Fifth Circuit’s requirement that a plaintiff prove a misstatement actually moved the market.  The District Court agreed and denied class certification because the Fund did not show the alleged misrepresentations caused any stock price increase.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that the Fund made no attempt to prove that Halliburton’s stock price moved in response to the alleged misrepresentations.  597 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 2010).  The court held that a plaintiff who relies solely on price declines must raise an inference that the price was actually affected by earlier misrepresentations.  Without showing that the alleged misrepresentation affected the stock price, the fraud-on-the-market presumption was unavailable.

The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit, holding that plaintiffs do not need to show loss causation at the class certification stage to invoke the Basic presumption.  131 S.Ct. 2179 (2011).  “Loss causation has no logical connection to the facts necessary to establish the efficient market predicate to the fraud-on-the-market theory.”  The Court held that invoking Basic requires only that plaintiffs demonstrate the alleged misrepresentations were publicly known, the stock traded in an efficient market, and the relevant transaction took place between the time of the alleged misrepresentations and the time the truth was revealed.

On remand, the District Court certified the class and held, without analysis, that “[t]he fraud-on-the-market theory applies to this case, so proof of each individual class member’s reliance is not required.”  2012 WL 545997 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2012).  This time, the Fifth Circuit affirmed class certification and rejected Defendants’ argument that the absence of “price impact”—an effect of a misrepresentation on stock price—could rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption.  718 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 2013).  The Fifth Circuit relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013), which held that since (1) the element of materiality was established by evidence common to all plaintiffs and (2) failure to prove materiality would cause all individual claims to fail, materiality was not necessary to the question of commonality at the class certification stage.  The Fifth Circuit similarly found that price impact was an objective inquiry that applied to everyone in the class and would be based on common evidence.  And if Halliburton could prove the absence of price impact, all individual claims would fail because plaintiffs would be unable to establish loss causation.  “[T]he focus of the 23(b)(3) class certification inquiry—predominance—is not whether the plaintiffs will fail or succeed, but whether they will fail or succeed together.”  Since price impact evidence did not bear on the question of whether common questions predominated, the Fifth Circuit affirmed class certification.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on November 15, 2013 and heard oral argument on March 5, 2014.

DISCLAIMER: 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.

© Orrick - Securities Litigation and Regulatory Enforcement Group | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Orrick - Securities Litigation and Regulatory Enforcement Group
Contact
more
less

Orrick - Securities Litigation and Regulatory Enforcement Group on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.