News & Analysis as of

Not So Basic Supreme Court to Revisit the Fraud-­on-­the Market Presumption of Reliance

Parties to pending securities fraud class actions may adjust litigation strategies, even before the Court revisits Basic’s presumption of investor reliance. On Friday, November 15, 2013, the Supreme Court granted...more

Plausible Allegations – Not Proof – Of Materiality All That’s Required For Class Certification in Securities Fraud Suits, Says...

In its ruling on February 27, in Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds (No. 11-1085), the first of several highly anticipated class action decisions that impact securities class action litigation going...more

Supreme Court Update: Two Securities Law Decisions This Week, and Another to Come

The United States Supreme Court has taken a keen interest in the securities arena this current term, agreeing to hear at least three cases (of only approximately 70 in total). This week, the Supreme Court announced decisions...more

Materiality Can Wait, Says the Supreme Court in Amgen

The following post is reprinted with permission from Paul Karlsgodt’s blog, www.classactionblawg.com. The Supreme Court has issued its opinion in one of the most highly anticipated class action-related cases on the...more

First Take on Amgen Decision: Supreme Court “Basically” Endorses Status Quo

The Supreme Court released its anxiously awaited decision in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans yesterday. On the face of the decision, it was a loss for defendants in that case, and for companies everywhere that are...more

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Need to Prove Materiality at Class-Certification Stage in Securities Class Actions

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on February 27, 2013 that a plaintiff need not prove materiality as a prerequisite to obtaining class certification in a securities class action. The Court's ruling in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut...more

6 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1