United States: Halliburton Co. V. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.: The US Supreme Court Confirms That Defendants In Securities Fraud Cases May Rebut Alleged Price Impact At The Class Certification Phase

The US Supreme Court's decision in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., Slip op., No. 13-317 (Jun. 23, 2014), unanimously held that before certifying a class in a securities fraud case, federal courts must allow defendants to challenge plaintiffs' claim that alleged misrepresentations or omissions impacted securities prices. Because proving price impact is a necessary element of a securities action, this ruling, written by Chief Justice Roberts, provides defendants with an important weapon to defeat class certification—a critical milestone in any class action case that generally occurs before the bulk of pre-trial discovery. Thus, after Halliburton, at the class certification stage, parties will not be able to rely solely on legal arguments that class certification elements have been met or rebutted; rather, they must also be prepared to present factual evidence going to the merits of the case through fact and/or expert witnesses.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Court also refused to overrule the so-called fraud-on-the-market presumption, created over 25 years ago1which allows plaintiffs in securities fraud actions to allege that in an efficient market the price of a security reflects the overall mix of material public information—meaning that plaintiffs can claim that the entire class uniformly relied on this information so that plaintiffs do not have to make individualized proof of reliance. A rejection of the fraud-on-the-market presumption, which was urged by Justices Thomas, Alito and Scalia, would have effectively ended the availability of class treatment of securities fraud actions. Although the decision is an important victory for the plaintiffs' class action bar in that respect, such victory is tempered by the Court continuing its trend of permitting defendants to litigate fact issues at the class certification phase and thereby potentially dispose of class action cases before expensive and full-blown pre-trial discovery.


The Erica P. John Fund, Inc. ("EPJ Fund") sued Halliburton and one of its executives ("Halliburton") for securities fraud. EPJ Fund alleged that Halliburton deliberately falsified its financial results by misrepresenting facts about the company's asbestos liability exposure and its capital reserves and insurance coverage for that liability. EPJ Fund claimed that Halliburton's share price dropped by more than 40 percent when the company issued corrective disclosures.

In seeking class certification, EPJ Fund argued that class-wide reliance on Halliburton's misrepresentations was established by the fraud-on-the-market presumption. The district court disagreed, holding that then–Fifth Circuit precedent required plaintiffs to prove that the alleged misrepresentations caused the plaintiffs' injury ("loss causation"). Ultimately, however, the Supreme Court vacated that ruling, holding that plaintiffs did not—at the class certification phase—have to prove loss causation.2

On remand, the district court certified the class, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Both courts rejected Halliburton's new argument that plaintiffs could not invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption because the same evidence defendants previously used to attack loss causation also demonstrated that Halliburton's misrepresentations did not impact the price of its stock. The Fifth Circuit held that "price impact evidence could be used at the trial on the merits to refute" this presumption, but not at the class certification phase.3 This was the issue that then went back up to the Supreme Court.

Federal Rule 23, Fraud-on-the-Market and Halliburton

To establish securities fraud under section 10b of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and SEC Rule 10b-5), a plaintiff must prove "(1) a material representation or omission by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation."4 To certify a class, plaintiffs also must meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which includes a requirement under Rule 23(b)(3) that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members." Class certification in a securities fraud case is significant because this means that individual plaintiffs are advancing damage claims on behalf of potentially thousands of injured parties, greatly multiplying the potential damages. Courts recognize that certification often results in "hydraulic" pressure for defendants to settle, regardless of the merits.5

The fraud-on-the-market presumption is a significant tool for plaintiffs in securities fraud cases because it eliminates the need to prove reliance as to each individual plaintiff, a task that would destroy any class action case. To invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption, a plaintiff must establish that (1) the security traded in an open, efficient market; (2) the alleged misrepresentations were publicly made; and (3) relevant transactions took place between the time the misrepresentations were made and the time of the corrective disclosures.

Before Halliburton, there was a split among the US Circuit Courts of Appeal as to whether securities fraud defendants could introduce evidence at the class certification stage showing a lack of price impact as a means to directly rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption, rather than just to counter a plaintiff's showing of market efficiency.6

The Supreme Court's Decision

Halliburton urged the Supreme Court to overrule Basic v. Levinson and "instead require every securities fraud plaintiff to prove that he actually relied on the defendant's misrepresentation in deciding to buy or sell a company's stock."7 Halliburton argued that the fraud-on-the-market presumption contravenes both congressional intent as expressed in the text of the securities laws and the Court's recent class action certification decisions, and that developments in economic theory have undermined the premises for the rule.8 Having recently upheld the fraud-on-the-market presumption, however, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a 6-3 majority, found these challenges unpersuasive and declined to overrule Basic.9

Although affirming the availability of the fraud-on-the-market presumption, the Court also held that this presumption "does not relieve plaintiffs of the burden of proving—before class certification—that the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b) (3) is met."10 In other words, "Basic does not...allow plaintiffs simply to plead that common questions of reliance predominate over individual ones, but rather sets forth what they must prove to demonstrate such predominance."11

The Court then recognized for the first time that "defendants should...be allowed to defeat the presumption at the class certification stage through evidence that the misrepresentation did not in fact affect the stock price."12 In Basic, the Supreme Court had advised that "any showing that severs the link between the alleged misrepresentation and either the price received (or paid) by the plaintiff, or his decision to trade at a fair market price, will be sufficient to rebut the presumption of reliance."13 Prior to Halliburton, though, the Court had not addressed whether this evidence could be introduced at class certification, rather than later, at the summary judgment or trial stage, to rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption. While it was reasonably clear that this type of evidence could be introduced at class certification for the purpose of showing that a security did not trade in an efficient market, prior to Halliburton there was an open question as to whether this evidence could be presented at class certification "for the particular purpose of rebutting the presumption altogether."14

The Supreme Court held that "artificially limiting" the use of direct rebuttal evidence at class certification "makes no sense, and can readily lead to bizarre results."15 The Court posited a situation in which a defendant introduced at the class certification phase evidence concerning market efficiency that also established that the purported misrepresentations had no price impact. The Court explained that if such evidence could only be considered to determine market efficiency, then theoretically the plaintiff could carry its burden to establish market efficiency—and thus have a class certified—even though absent price impact the fraud-on-the-market theory should not apply and common reliance should not be presumed.16 The Court noted that this result contradicts the logic of Basic because market efficiency is just "an indirect way" for plaintiffs to show price impact, and "an indirect proxy should not preclude direct evidence when such evidence is available."17


Halliburton is significant because of the Court's price-impact holding. This decision continues a recent trend by the Supreme Court encouraging the litigation and resolution of fact issues as part of the class certification process—as opposed to at trial after pre-trial discovery. Halliburton is consistent with last year's ruling in Comcast v. Behrend, in which the Court held that plaintiffs seeking class certification must establish through "evidentiary proof" that damages are capable of class-wide resolution in order to satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b).18 The Court firmly rejected the notion that arguments and evidence "pertinent to the merits determination" are off-limits at the class certification stage. Similarly, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the Court affirmed that at the class certification stage federal courts must resolve all factual disputes bearing on the Rule 23 requirements for certification.19

Halliburton confirms that it is becoming progressively more challenging for plaintiffs in class action cases to plead and advance their cases. Also, by increasing the evidentiary burdens on plaintiffs (and the need to rebut evidence presented by defendants), Halliburton will make it more expensive for class action plaintiffs to move their cases forward by requiring plaintiffs to spend money prior to class certification to hire experts who can testify on price impact and damages. Given that most securities class action cases are handled on a contingent-fee basis, with plaintiffs' counsel only receiving payment upon some recovery or settlement, the front-loading of expert and other fees needed to justify class certification is likely to make plaintiffs' counsel choose more carefully which securities cases to bring—and may continue the recent trend of fewer securities fraud cases being filed.

Halliburton also underscores the importance of defendants in securities fraud class action investing early on in pre-certification discovery and damage theory development.20 Early expert retention will become an even more important tool in assessing and managing the risk exposure of a securities fraud action, and defendants should assume that the class certification phase will be something of a mini-trial on which claims and classes rise or fall. As such, defendants also should be prepared to assess early-on how much time they will need for the pre-certification discovery period and expert preparations so that they may take maximum advantage of the opportunities presented by the Halliburton ruling.


1 Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988).

2 Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 131 S. Ct. 2179, 2185-86 (2011).

3 Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 718 F.3d 423, 433-35 (5th Cir. 2013).

4 Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans and Trust Funds, 568 U.S. __, __ (2013) (slip op. at 3-4).

5 Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 164 (3d Cir. 2001) (noting that class certification can "plac[e] inordinate or hydraulic pressure on defendants to settle, avoiding the risk, however small, of potentially ruinous liability").

6 Halliburton, slip op. at 4 ("Op.").

7 Op. at 4.

8 Op. at 7-13. Justice Thomas's concurring opinion accepted each of these arguments against preserving the rule.

9 In dicta, the majority advised that the fact that defendants could rebut the presumption "with respect to an individual plaintiff by showing that he did not rely on the integrity of the market price in trading stock," and thereby "pick off the occasional class member...does not cause individual questions to predominate." Op. at 14-15. Although dicta, this statement is likely to negatively impact defendants advancing similar arguments concerning the predominance requirement.

10 Op. at 14.

11 Op. at 14.

12 Op. at 18.

13 485 U.S. at 248.

14 Op. at 19.

15 Op. at 19, 22.

16 Op. at 19-20.

17 Op. at 20.

18 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1432-33 (2013).

19 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011) ("Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard. A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule—that is, he must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc.").

20 Indeed, Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion noting the likely expansion of pre-certification discovery, though she dismissed the prospect as imposing "no heavy toll on securities-fraud plaintiffs with tenable claims."

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions