Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What colorful method does Claire Miley use to keep up with the latest healthcare regulations as they relate to proposed transactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

CLARCOR
Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Securities Law Exchange BlogSecurities Law Exchange blog offers insight on the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting publicly traded companies. It focuses on a wide variety of topics including regulation and reporting updates, public company advisory topics, IPO readiness and exchange updates including IPO announcements, M&A trends and deal news.

Read More >

Supreme Court Preserves Fraud-on-the-Market Theory In Halliburton

Publications

June 25, 2014

On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, No. 13-317. The decision was easily one of the most eagerly anticipated of the Court's current term and involved fundamental questions about the viability of securities fraud class action litigation that had many in the plaintiffs' bar holding their breath about the future of that practice area.

At issue was the so-called "fraud-on-the-market" presumption of reliance created by the Court in Basic v. Levinson some 25 years ago, which allows plaintiffs to obtain certification of securities fraud class actions without having to demonstrate individual reliance on an alleged misrepresentation by each member of the putative class. This plaintiff-friendly presumption rests on the "efficient market" theory – that is, that the share price of a publicly traded security reflects all publicly available information about that security, including alleged misrepresentations. A showing of individual reliance, therefore, is unnecessary if the alleged misrepresentation was public since the average shareholder relies on a company's share price when buying or selling shares. The loss of the "fraud-on-the market" presumption would have made it much harder, if not impossible, for plaintiffs to pursue claims for securities fraud under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act and/or Rule 10b-5 as class actions – a major concern for firms specializing in such work.

As many predicted, however, such concerns were overblown. In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court effectively split the baby: refusing to overturn the "fraud-on-the-market" presumption, while at the same time clarifying that defendants should be allowed to rebut the presumption at the class certification stage using evidence of no price impact. The decision reverses earlier decisions in the case by both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which had ruled that defendants are not entitled to introduce evidence at the class certification stage intended to rebut the presumption of reliance.

According to the Supreme Court, this case presented no "special justification" to warrant "overturning a long-settled precedent" established in Basic. Specifically, the Court rejected the argument that Plaintiffs in securities fraud class actions should have to prove reliance on an individual basis, as well as the argument that the "efficient market" theory underlying Basic was no longer valid. The Court also saw no justification to require plaintiffs to affirmatively prove price impact, which the Court said "would radically alter the required showing" of reliance in a 10(b) / 10b-5 action.

The Supreme Court did, however, provide defendants with an important tool by affording them the chance to rebut the presumption of reliance at the all-important class certification stage using evidence that no "price impact" had occurred. Here, the Court seemed to undertake a "fair's fair" analysis – because plaintiffs typically must introduce indirect evidence of price impact to establish entitlement to the presumption (via evidence of market efficiency and the public nature of an alleged misrepresentation), defendants should be allowed to fight back, especially where they may have direct evidence showing no price impact. "Defendants must be afforded an opportunity before class certification to defeat the presumption through evidence that an alleged misrepresentation did not actually affect the market price of the stock." (Emphasis supplied).

Obviously, how defendants will use this new tool and how courts will receive it is still to be determined, but it will likely not change the landscape of securities class actions in dramatic fashion. It should, however, cement class certification as the primary battleground for these actions (following the motion to dismiss stage), as well as give economists and damage experts new work as defendants try to determine whether they can provide evidence to rebut the presumption.  For those cases where such evidence is compelling, this new defense will certainly be dispositive. For others, it will be a non-factor.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.