Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did an interest in healthcare policy lead Robert Platt to a career in the law? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Envision to Sell to KKR for $9.9 Billion

We represented Envision Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: EVHC) in its definitive agreement to sell to KKR in an all-cash transaction for $9.9 billion, including debt. KKR will pay $46 per Envision share in cash to buy the company, marking a 32 percent premium to the company's volume-weighted average share price from November 1, when Envision announced it was considering its options. The transaction is expected to close the fourth quarter of 2018. Read more


Envision Healthcare

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

Six Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice spotlight

Dermatology, ophthalmology, radiology, urology…the list goes on. Yet, in any physician practice management transaction, there are six key considerations that apply and, if not carefully managed, can derail a transaction. Download the 6 Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice to keep your physician practice management transactions on track.

Click here to download the guide.

District Court Issues Opinion on Supreme Court Holding in Halliburton

Publications

August 28, 2015

On July 27, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued its opinion on remand of Halliburton, Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2398 (2014) (Halliburton II), providing a glimpse into how the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in this case will be applied by district courts going forward. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., No. 3:02-CV-1152-M, slip op. at 1 (N.D. Tex. July 25, 2015). As discussed in our June 2014 alert, in Halliburton II the Supreme Court held that a defendant in a securities fraud class action can introduce evidence of a lack of price impact at the class certification stage to rebut the "fraud on the market" presumption of reliance.

The opinion by U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn showed that the Supreme Court's holding in Halliburton II may have teeth going forward. Judge Lynn thoroughly applied the Supreme Court's holding in Halliburton II, carefully analyzing the economic arguments proposed by the defendants in her 53-page opinion. Judge Lynn spent the majority of her opinion comparing the methodologies and findings of the economists hired by Halliburton and the Erica P. John Fund, suggesting that the class certification stage of proceedings may become a "battle of the experts" going forward. While Judge Lynn was convinced by Halliburton's experts that five of the purported corrective disclosures at issue did not have a statistically significant impact on Halliburton's share price, she found that Defendants had not met their burden of showing that disclosure of a $30 million jury verdict against a subsidiary did not impact Halliburton's share price (which had plunged 40 percent), justifying certification with regard to that single disclosure. The opinion is significant because it demonstrates that, depending on the right set of underlying facts, Halliburton II can be used by securities class action defendants to ward off, or at least narrow, class certification, provided they are willing to spend the time and money to hire economics experts and conduct price impact studies.

Judge Lynn also dedicated a substantial portion of her opinion to the issue of burden-shifting. Judge Lynn joined other district court judges in holding that defendants bear the burden of proving that alleged corrective disclosures did not affect the company's share price. Judge Lynn also rejected Halliburton's argument that investors must prove at the class certification that supposed corrective disclosures were, in fact, corrective of alleged misrepresentations, referring to this argument as "a veiled attempt to assert the 'truth on the market' defense," which the Court found was not properly an issue at this stage of the litigation.


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.