Source: cases/15usc78j/us-568-455-amgen-v-connecticut-retirement.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_568/0455_01/index.html
Because materiality is judged according to an objective standard, the materiality of Amgen’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions is a question common to all members of the class Connecticut Retirement would represent.
While Connecticut Retirement certainly must prove materiality to prevail on the merits, we hold that such proof is not a prerequisite to class certification.
If the alleged misrepresentations and omissions are ultimately found immaterial, the fraud-on-the-market presumption of classwide reliance will collapse.
The District Court thus correctly reserved consideration of Amgen’s rebuttal evidence for summary judgment or trial.
casedsl 1 case /us/568/0455-01 name Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds cite 568 U.S. 455 (2013) court Supreme Court of the United States date 2013-02-27 url catalog/cases/us/volume_568/0455_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/us_568.jsonl sha1=fe6547c0deedfcaaa908bf9b8380ada017dc3bcf chars=59999 law 15usc78j role rule-announced posture interlocutory Rule 23(b)(3) class-certification review; materiality proof and rebuttal timing; majority only result claimant-won element materiality : not-reached scope procedural variant certification/materiality-common-question fact @9022..10143 [supports] | In its complaint, Connecticut Retirement alleges that Amgen violated § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 through certain misrepresentations and misleading omissions regarding the safety, efficacy, and marketing of two of its flagship drugs. According to Connecticut Retirement, these misrepresentations and omissions artificially inflated the price of Amgen’s stock at the time Connecticut Retirement and numerous other securities buyers purchased- the stock. When the truth came to light, Connecticut Retirement asserts, Am-gen’s stock price declined, resulting in financial losses to those who purchased the stock at the inflated price. In its answer to Connecticut Retirement’s complaint, Amgen conceded that “[a]t all relevant times, the market for [its] securities,” which are traded on the NASDAQ stock exchange, “was an efficient market”; thus, “the market for Amgen’s securities promptly digested current information regarding Amgen from all publicly available sources and reflected such information in Amgen’s stock price.” Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ¶¶ 199-200 in No. CV-07-2536 (CD Cal.); Answer ¶¶199-200. rule @2490..2712 | Because materiality is judged according to an objective standard, the materiality of Amgen’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions is a question common to all members of the class Connecticut Retirement would represent. held @2170..2327 | While Connecticut Retirement certainly must prove materiality to prevail on the merits, we hold that such proof is not a prerequisite to class certification. gloss Certification is affirmed without deciding whether the drug statements were material. Allegations of inflation and later decline are context, not findings of economic loss or causation. element reliance : not-reached scope procedural theory materiality attack on fraud-on-market presumption variant certification/truth-on-market-rebuttal fact @864..1075 [supports] | Amgen has conceded the efficiency of the market for the securities at issue and has not contested the public character of the allegedly fraudulent statements on which Connecticut Retirement’s complaint is based. fact @40494..40775 [cuts-against] | Amgen responded to this allegation by presenting public documents—including the committee’s meeting agenda, which was published in the Federal Register more than a month before the meeting—stating that safety concerns associated with Amgen’s drug would be discussed at the meeting. rule @41813..41966 | If the alleged misrepresentations and omissions are ultimately found immaterial, the fraud-on-the-market presumption of classwide reliance will collapse. held @42947..43063 | The District Court thus correctly reserved consideration of Amgen’s rebuttal evidence for summary judgment or trial. gloss The rebuttal at issue was an attack on materiality; the decision postpones that proof. Conceded efficiency/publicity is not a conceded finding of actual reliance for every investor. misfit Certification succeeds but no section 10(b) element is a merits instance. The IR is capped at 60000 characters; majority reasoning and judgment are present, with later separate-opinion material omitted from annotation. This is a historical 2013 materiality-timing ruling, not an unqualified modern rule excluding all price-impact rebuttal at certification.