The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari today in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, No. 11-1085, to address the requirements for certifying a securities class action based on the “fraud-on-the-market” theory of reliance. The “fraud-on-the-market” theory involves allegations that public misrepresentations or omissions adversely affected the market price of a stock causing losses to an entire class of investors whether or not they individually relied on the information. The theory can alleviate a common barrier to class certification, the need to prove individual reliance on alleged fraud. As summarized by the folks at the SCOTUS blog, the issues accepted for review are as follows:
(1) Whether, in a misrepresentation case under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, the district court must require proof of materiality before certifying a plaintiff class based on the fraud-on-the-market theory; and (2) whether, in such a case, the district court must allow the defendant to present evidence rebutting the applicability of the fraud-on-the-market theory before certifying a plaintiff class based on that theory. (Breyer, J., recused)
Amgen comes close on the heels of the Court’s decision last term in Erica P. John Fund Inc. v. Halliburton Co., in which a unanimous Court overturned a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the plaintiff in a securities class action brought under the fraud-on-the-market theory must prove loss causation at the class certification phase. While the Court in Erica P. John Fund held that proof of the element of loss causation on the merits could not be required as a precondition of class certification, it was not presented with the question of what proof is needed at the class certification phase to support the application of the fraud-on-the-market doctrine itself.
The case will be heard in the October 2012 Supreme Court term.