Supreme Court of the United States · 2013-02-27
15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: rule-announced; posture: interlocutory Rule 23(b)(3) class-certification review; materiality proof and rebuttal timing; majority only; result: claimant-won; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
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.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 12
| Case | Statutory commerce, mails, or exchange facility | Section 78j(b) rulemaking hook | Materially false statement or misleading half-truth | Importance to a reasonable investor | Intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud | Connection with a covered securities or swap transaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds — 568 U.S. 455 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: rule-announced/procedural | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 12
| Case | Private plaintiff's purchaser or seller status | Private investor transaction causation | Actual economic loss in private damages action | Causal connection between fraud and economic loss | Fraudulent scheme or deceptive course of business | Additional criminal mental-state requirement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds — 568 U.S. 455 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: rule-announced/procedural | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds — 568 U.S. 455 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 — not reached (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | Importance to a reasonable investor | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / proceduralCertification 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. | certification/materiality-common-question | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_568.jsonl#/us/568/0455-01; Unicode character offsets [9022:10143] (end exclusive); SHA-256 783f30433ff15ff24f247eae80001fb18e8448da4e9093fee6531e6584fb8a8b.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_568.jsonl#/us/568/0455-01; Unicode character offsets [2490:2712] (end exclusive); SHA-256 783f30433ff15ff24f247eae80001fb18e8448da4e9093fee6531e6584fb8a8b.While Connecticut Retirement certainly must prove materiality to prevail on the merits, we hold that such proof is not a prerequisite to class certification.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_568.jsonl#/us/568/0455-01; Unicode character offsets [2170:2327] (end exclusive); SHA-256 783f30433ff15ff24f247eae80001fb18e8448da4e9093fee6531e6584fb8a8b. |
| Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds — 568 U.S. 455 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 — not reached (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | Private investor transaction causation | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / procedural theory: materiality attack on fraud-on-market presumption; subject: theory=materiality attack on fraud-on-market presumption 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. | certification/truth-on-market-rebuttal | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_568.jsonl#/us/568/0455-01; Unicode character offsets [864:1075] (end exclusive); SHA-256 783f30433ff15ff24f247eae80001fb18e8448da4e9093fee6531e6584fb8a8b.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_568.jsonl#/us/568/0455-01; Unicode character offsets [40494:40775] (end exclusive); SHA-256 783f30433ff15ff24f247eae80001fb18e8448da4e9093fee6531e6584fb8a8b.If the alleged misrepresentations and omissions are ultimately found immaterial, the fraud-on-the-market presumption of classwide reliance will collapse.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_568.jsonl#/us/568/0455-01; Unicode character offsets [41813:41966] (end exclusive); SHA-256 783f30433ff15ff24f247eae80001fb18e8448da4e9093fee6531e6584fb8a8b.The District Court thus correctly reserved consideration of Amgen’s rebuttal evidence for summary judgment or trial.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_568.jsonl#/us/568/0455-01; Unicode character offsets [42947:43063] (end exclusive); SHA-256 783f30433ff15ff24f247eae80001fb18e8448da4e9093fee6531e6584fb8a8b. |