Supreme Court issues decision in Halliburton Case

FRT Admin
Site administrator
June 24, 2014

On June 23, 2014, Chief Justice Roberts delivered an opinion in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund (“Halliburton II”) addressing two issues of importance to the process of litigating securities class actions, namely:

  1. Whether to overrule or else substantially modify the holding of Basic Inc. v. Levinson (“Basic”), to the extent that it recognizes a presumption of class-wide reliance derived from the fraud-on-the-market theory; and
  2. Whether, in a case where the plaintiff invokes the presumption of reliance to seek class certification, the defendant may rebut the presumption and prevent class certification by introducing evidence that the alleged misrepresentations did not distort the market price of the defendant’s stock.

At a glance, the Supreme Court’s decision, as it pertains to each issue described above, can be summarized as follows:

The Court Held: Explanation:
1. Halliburton did not show a “special justification,” for overruling Basic‘s presumption of reliance. The “fraud-on-the-market” theory, first introduced Basic, holds that investors in a class do not need to prove their individual reliance on false or misleading information, because in an efficient marketplace, a class-wide presumption of reliance is implied.  Halliburton II affirmed the Court’s earlier decision from Basic, thereby upholding the fraud-on-the-market theory as a valid economic framework for proving reliance in securities class actions.
2. Defendants must be afforded an opportunity to rebut the presumption of reliance before class certification with evidence of a lack of price impact. Defendants in securities class actions have always had the right to introduce evidence showing that the allegedly fraudulent behavior did not impact the price of the relevant securities.  However, in Halliburton II the Court holds that defendants have the right to introduce such evidence earlier in the litigation process – specifically before class certification.

FRT Halliburton ReviewFRT has compiled a detailed review of Halliburton II including a full background of the case, details of the Court’s decision, and FRT’s conclusion.

Click here to request more information about the impact this case will have on securities class actions.

ABOUT FINANCIAL RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES
SETTLED  I  NON-US GLOBAL OPT-IN  I  ANTITRUST  I  GLOBAL PASSIVE  I  DIRECT OPT-OUT  I  BUYOUTS

Founded in 2008, Financial Recovery Technologies (FRT) is a leading technology-based services firm that helps the investment community identify eligibility, file claims and collect funds made available in securities and other class action settlements. Offering the most comprehensive range of claim filing and monitoring services available, we provide best-in-class eligibility analysis, disbursement auditing and client reporting, and deliver the highest level of accuracy, accountability and transparency available. For more information, go to www.frtservices.com.

 

This communication and the content found by following any link herein are being provided to you by Financial Recovery Technologies (FRT) for informational purposes only and does not constitute advice. All material presented herein is believed to be reliable but FRT makes no representation or warranty with respect to this communication or such content and expressly disclaims any implied warranty under law. Opinions expressed in this communication may change without prior notice. Firms should always seek legal and financial advice specific to their unique situation and objectives.