SCOTUS to tackle class action criteria for securities cases

Nov 11, 2012 @ 12:01 am

By Mark Schoeff Jr.

Investors who file claims against a company for misrepresenting stock offerings could have a harder time making the suit a class action, depending on the outcome of a case before the Supreme Court.

Last Monday, the high court heard oral arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds. The $24.3 billion pension fund is the lead plaintiff among a group of investors alleging that Amgen withheld information about the safety of two of the firm's anemia drugs; once the information came out, the company stock price dropped sharply.

Several justices suggested that it is more appropriate to prove harm after a class is certified.

But Justice Antonin Scalia argued that materiality is an important issue at the initial certification stage “because there is enormous pressure to settle once a class is certified.”

If the Supreme Court upholds lower-court rulings that allowed a class to be certified before determining whether the information affected the stock price, companies might decide to disseminate an avalanche of material to protect against future suits.

“It means [investment] advisers are going to have to ferret through that much more information to figure out what is actually going on at a company,” said Lee Unterman, managing partner at Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP.

The question of materiality should be determined before class status is granted, the company argues.

But a district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the investors could be designated as a class first and then materiality could be addressed at trial.

Other circuits have held that the class determination should occur after materiality is settled.

The high court's decision “could make it more difficult for plaintiffs to be certified as a class in securities law cases,” said Jay Baris, a partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP.

“The company should have a chance to defeat class certification on the merits early on rather than waiting for trial or a summary judgment,” Mr. Unterman said.

— Hazel Bradford from sister publication Pensions & Investments contributed to this report.

mschoeff@investmentnews.com Twitter: @markschoeff

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video

Events

What's the top issue on advisers minds?

Laura Pierson from Carson Group discusses how the old topic of 'Human Capital' is hot again because of millennials.

Latest news & opinion

Advisor Group acquires Signator Investors and plans on folding it into Royal Alliance

Advisor Group takes 'orphan' broker-dealer off the hands of John Hancock Financial Services.

It's official: DOL fiduciary rule is dead

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mandate Thursday making its March 15 decision to strike down the regulation effective.

Supreme Court curbs SEC administrative law judges

'Buckets of Money' adviser Raymond Lucia is entitled to a new hearing, court rules.

Opaque, outdated 401(k) plan disclosures harming investors, advisers

Morningstar report: Lack of data on fees, investments makes advice on rollovers costlier and more challenging for investors.

Mutual funds feel the pinch of platform fees

No-transaction-fee options are a big hit with investors, but funds wind up paying the costs — and passing them on.

X

Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting investmentnews.com? It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist investmentnews.com

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print