Reading Tea Leaves After the Supreme Court’s Amgen Securities Litigation Decision

by Foley Hoag LLP
Contact

On February 27, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Fund.  In the decision, the Court held that plaintiffs in 10b-5 securities litigation need not prove materiality of the alleged misrepresentation in order to obtain class certification. 

While commentators are heralding the decision as landmark, its importance may lie less in the line it draws for parties battling class certification and more in what it signals for a much broader issue in securities regulation.  The fascinating aspect of the case is that four of the justices questioned the continued vitality of the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption, recognized in Basic Inc. v. Levinson (1988), without which securities fraud class actions cannot proceed.

Background of the Case

The Amgen case was brought in 2007 against pharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. by a state pension fund shareholder.  The plaintiff complained that Amgen engaged in public market securities fraud by allegedly concealing the safety risks of two of its drugs used to treat anemia.  The suit survived a motion to dismiss and arrived at the class certification stage where the shareholder plaintiff seeks to have a class certified of all those who purchased company shares during the specified time period.

The foundation of every securities fraud class action is Basic, decided by the Supreme Court in 1988.  Prior to Basic, securities fraud actions could not proceed as class actions but rather only as individual actions because the fundamental inquiry in such fraud cases is whether each shareholder received and was misled by the alleged misstatements.  With the inquiry at the individual shareholder level, common issues do not predominate and class treatment is inappropriate. 

In Basic, the plurality of the Court adopted the fraud-on-the-market presumption, which relieves the individual shareholder of the need to establish receipt and reliance upon the alleged misstatements, and instead presumes that in an efficient market, the price of a publicly-traded stock reflects all material public information about the stock.  Thus, by buying at the market price, the stockholder is presumed to rely on all such information. 

After the Court decided Basic, plaintiffs’ lawyers developed a cottage industry in bringing lucrative class actions alleging securities fraud by public companies.  The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was enacted in 1995 to curtail perceived excesses of securities fraud litigation by imposing higher pleading standards and limitations on professional plaintiffs bringing cases.  Since 1995, the Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions, generally favorable to registrants, giving effect to the 1995 legislation.

In Amgen, the defendant registrant argued that before a class may be certified and before the Basic presumption may be applied on a class-wide basis, the plaintiff must prove, at the class certification hearing, that the alleged misstatements were “material.”  After all, Amgen argued, the fraud-on-the-market presumption only applies if there are material misrepresentations made in an efficient market. 

The Supreme Court stated in the 2011 Halliburton case that plaintiffs must prove at class certification that the market is efficient with respect to the particular stock at issue, so why would the materiality inquiry be any different?  Amgen then argued that the alleged misrepresentations were not material because the market already knew the information. 

Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, the Second and Fifth Circuits had already adopted the rule Amgen advanced.  The First Circuit seemed to agree, and the Seventh and Ninth Circuits went the other way.  The Third Circuit took an intermediate approach.

The Court’s Decision

In Amgen, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 majority that included Justices Ginsberg, writing for the Court, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor and Kagan and Chief Justice Roberts, held that the question of whether the alleged misrepresentation is material is one on the merits that must wait until the merits phase of summary judgment and perhaps trial.  Justices Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia dissented, arguing that materiality should be proved by a plaintiff at the class certification stage before the fraud-on-the-market presumption may come into play.  Justice Scalia also raised a policy consideration by noting that once a class is certified, there is added pressure on a company to settle so as to avoid the costs and risks of further class action litigation.

The Amgen decision is obviously favorable to plaintiffs.  Certain defendants would have retained a valuable defense to class certification if materiality could be invoked.  In many cases, however, the materiality of the alleged misrepresentation is not the central issue.  And even in those cases in which materiality is at issue, the cases will either be extinguished on that basis at the outset on a motion to dismiss or the defense will survive, although it will have to wait until the next phase after class certification.

Is the Fraud-on-the-Market Theory Vulnerable?

What we find most interesting about the Amgen decision is the hostility demonstrated towards Basic itself by four of the justices.  Justice Scalia, raised eyebrows during oral argument in November 2012 by remarking “maybe we shouldn't have this fraud-on-the-market theory . . . . So maybe we should overrule Basic.”  In his dissent, Justice Scalia criticized Basic as regrettable and as appearing nowhere in any statute or the common law but rather as having been “invented” by four members of the Court. 

Justice Thomas in his dissent, joined by Justice Kennedy, characterized Basic as a “judicially invented doctrine based on an economic theory adopted to ease the burden on plaintiffs bringing claims under an implied cause of action” while highlighting the dissent of Justices White and O’Connor in Basic

Justice Alito noted in his one-paragraph concurrence that Amgen had not asked the Court to revisit Basic but that it may be high time to do so. 

In the end, while Amgen is a win for plaintiffs on the specific issue before the Court, it could be the catalyst for a reconsideration of fraud-on-the-market as a fundamental presumption for securities fraud class actions.

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.

© Foley Hoag LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Foley Hoag LLP
Contact
more
less

Foley Hoag LLP 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.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!