Public Company Alert: “Fraud-on-the-Market” Presumption Adopted in Oregon Securities Case

by Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

With the recent Oregon Supreme Court case State of Oregon v. Marsh & McLennan Companies and Marsh Inc., Oregon is among the first states to recognize the “fraud-on-the-market” theory in securities cases. This development may make it easier for some purchasers of securities to assert securities fraud claims in Oregon.

Many people are familiar with the requirements to prove a securities claim, and although the standards vary to some degree depending on the type of claim and the jurisdiction in which the claim is brought, each jurisdiction generally requires that a plaintiff prove a misstatement of a material fact (or the omission of a material statement), reliance by the plaintiff on the statement or omission, a loss suffered by the plaintiff, and a causal relationship between the misstatement or omission and the loss. Under federal securities law, the “reliance” element required to support a securities fraud claim may be established in certain circumstances through the “fraud-on-the-market” theory. The theory is based upon the notion that, in an efficient market, the price of a given security reflects the information publicly available about that security and its issuer. Thus, where material information is misstated or omitted, and that information would alter the total mix of information available to the trading public, then the impact on price is sufficient to establish reliance even if the purchaser was unaware of the specific information reflected in the price. Thus, if a plaintiff can demonstrate that the marketplace as a whole reflected incomplete or misleading information, and if that reflection affected the price of a publicly traded class of securities, then the plaintiff may prove reliance by establishing a rebuttable presumption of reliance—even if the purchaser may not have relied directly on the misrepresentations.

Now, under Marsh, the fraud-on-the-market presumption may allow a plaintiff to establish reliance under Oregon securities law as well. Marsh involved a civil damages claim (rather than an enforcement action) by the state of Oregon against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (“MMC”) and Marsh, Inc. (collectively “Marsh”) arising out of the state’s purchase of $15 million of common stock in MMC. The state treasurer, in his capacity as trustee for the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund, alleged that Marsh made material misrepresentations in violation of Oregon securities law. The plaintiff contended that these representations artificially inflated MMC’s stock price and resulted in a $10 million loss to the state once the misrepresentations were disclosed and the stock price fell.

The primary issues in Marsh were whether the state had to prove reliance under Oregon securities law, and if so, whether that reliance could be established through the fraud-on-the-market presumption. Although the trial court and the Court of Appeals held that reliance is required but cannot be established through the fraud-on-the-market presumption, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that when securities are purchased in an open market, reliance can be established through the fraud-on-the-market presumption. In order to meet this standard, the Supreme Court held, the plaintiff must have purchased in an open, efficient market; thus investors in privately held or thinly traded securities may have limited success in utilizing the fraud-on-the-market presumption.

After Marsh, there are numerous open issues pertaining to the application of the fraud-on-the-market doctrine in Oregon. For example, one of the more controversial assumptions underscoring the fraud-on-the-market doctrine is that markets are rational, meaning that “the market price of shares traded on well-developed markets reflects all publicly available information, and, hence any misrepresentations.” Although the Court indicated that purchasers seeking to invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption must establish as a question of fact that the stock was purchased “in an open and efficient market” (emphasis added), it did not address to what extent purchasers will need to affirmatively prove the efficiency of the market prior to relying on the fraud-on-the-market presumption—or how they might go about doing so. Nor did the Court decide whether the fraud-on-the-market presumption applies in material omission cases or what standard of proof a defendant must satisfy in order to rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption. Likewise, the Court did not address the question of whether a plaintiff must prove scienter, or fraudulent intent, in fraud-on-the-market claims.

Although the Court did not address all of the intricacies of the fraud-on-the-market presumption, given Marsh’s emphasis on bringing Oregon law more in line with federal law, federal law will likely continue to influence how Oregon courts interpret Oregon securities law. Importantly, unless Oregon courts begin to diverge from the influence of federal law going forward, public companies should be aware that, just as the federal fraud-on-the-market presumption made it easier for plaintiff’s to assert securities fraud cases against public companies, so, too, might the doctrine’s introduction in Oregon expose public companies to more successful securities fraud claims under Oregon securities law.

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.

© Davis Wright Tremaine LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Davis Wright Tremaine 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.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

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.


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 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:

- 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.