The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Monday to overturn its Basic v. Levinson decision but ruled that securities defendants may rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance before class certification. Here, Michael Celio tells Law360 why the decision in Halliburton Co. et al. v. Erica P. John Fund is significant.
"If the court had overturned Basic, securities litigation as we have known it for 20 years would have passed into the history books. If investors had to show that they actually relied on particular statements in making purchases, virtually no cases would ever be brought. What the court did instead is more modest, but it does gives companies facing these suits an important arrow in the defensive quiver by allowing defendants to show a lack of price impact before class certification. This will make many companies more reluctant to settle — or at least delay many of those settlements.”
About Michael Celio
Michael Celio handles white collar criminal cases, complex civil litigation, and enforcement actions brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or the Department of Justice. An experienced trial lawyer, Mr. Celio has tried more than a dozen cases to verdict in state and federal courts. He has significant expertise defending civil and criminal securities cases. Mr. Celio’s recent civil cases have involved antitrust actions, shareholder derivative suits, allegations relating to the theft of trade secrets, and auditor malpractice. His clients include Broadcom, San Mateo County and Intuitive Surgical.