The Supreme Court’s Decision in Amgen and Other Recent Securities Cases

This year, on the heels of its rulings in Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton (2011) and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011), the Supreme Court has issued several opinions affecting securities fraud litigation. Of particular note, Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds held that proof of materiality was not required at the class certification stage for an action based on the fraud on the market (FOTM) theory. This webcast will examine this recent Supreme Court decision, including the possible implications of four Justices suggesting a willingness to revisit whether the FOTM presumption of reliance is still proper. The Supreme Court’s possible willingness to revisit this theory could have a dramatic effect on securities litigation. This webcast also will discuss other recent Supreme Court cases and how they could affect parties in both private securities class actions and government enforcement actions: •Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, which required proof of classwide damages at the certification stage, may also affect securities class actions. •Gabelli v. SEC limited the “discovery rule” for statute of limitations to non-government enforcement actions. •The Court’s upcoming ruling in Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice will address the scope of SLUSA’s “in connection with” requirement.