Supreme Court Decides AMGEN – Allows Plaintiff Class to be Certified Without Separate Materiality Inquiry


On February 27, 2013, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, No. 11-1085 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2013). In a six to three decision, the Court held that plaintiffs asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 need not, at the class certification stage of a proceeding, prove that alleged misrepresentations were material in order to avail themselves of the fraud-on-the-market presumption in establishing predominance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Court further held that defendants could not rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption at the class certification stage solely by establishing that such misrepresentations were immaterial (e.g., through the “truth-on-the-market” defense).

The decision further clarifies the requirements for obtaining class certification in securities fraud cases and resolves a split among the circuits, including by setting aside governing precedent in the Second Circuit, among others. In Amgen, the Supreme Court held that so long as plaintiffs establish that alleged misrepresentations were public statements made in an efficient market, they may rely on the fraud-on-the-market presumption and need not separately establish materiality to fulfill the predominance requirement for class certification. The question of materiality can require complicated expert testimony, and this decision narrows the instances in which materiality can be addressed in purported class actions and eases the burden on plaintiffs seeking to proceed as a class.

Securities Fraud Class Actions and the Fraud-On-The-Market Presumption Of Reliance -

To bring a viable claim under Section 10(b), a plaintiff must plead and prove “(1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation.” Amgen, slip op. at 3-4 (citing Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 131 S. Ct. 1309, 1317 (2011)). To certify a class seeking damages for alleged violations of Section 10(b), plaintiffs must also establish that the purported class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), including the requirement under Rule 23(b)(3) that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” Id. (emphasis added).

Please see full publication below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

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.

© Shearman & Sterling LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* 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.