Securities Fraud Litigation: Trends in Class Certification
Created on October 16, 2018
Four years ago, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2398 (2014) (Halliburton II) which held that defendants could affirmatively challenge price impact at the class certification stage. Since then, several important decisions have begun to take hold and shape the post-Halliburton II class certification landscape. For example, many courts have wrestled with the difficult questions of: (1) what evidence Defendants can properly show at the class certification stage to show a lack of price impact; and (2) what standard of proof is actually required to rebut the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption of reliance. These decisions, as well as other related developments in class certification jurisprudence are drastically changing the way class certification is litigated.
Join Christine Fox and James Christie for a discussion on these issues. Ms. Fox is a partner and Mr. Christie is an associate at Labaton Sucharow LLP. Ms. Fox and Mr. Christie represent institutional investors (such as public pension funds and hedge funds) who have suffered financial losses in the stock market as a result of securities fraud committed by publicly traded companies and their officers and executives.
- Familiarize yourself with many of the important recent decisions shaping the class certification in the securities fraud context
- Analyze recent decisions in the Second and Ninth Circuits dealing with price impact at the class certification stage and what it means for both plaintiffs and defendants going forward
- Develop best practices for seeking and opposing class certification based on recent class certification jurisprudence
- Discuss some of the trends, challenges, and practical implications of today’s class certification landscape
Gain access to this course, plus unlimited access to 1,500+ courses, with an Unlimited Subscription.Explore Lawline Subscriptions