SCOTUS Decision Endorses Pomerantz Evidence Standard

POMERANTZ MONITOR | JULY AUGUST 2021

Pomerantz Partner Emma Gilmore led a team of Pomerantz attorneys and twenty-seven of the foremost evidence scholars to submit an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. et al v. Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, et al. (No. 20- 222). Pomerantz’s brief was the sole amicus brief devoted to one of only two issues before the Court: whether the defendants in securities fraud class actions bear the burden of persuasion when seeking to rebut the presumption of reliance originated by the Court in its landmark decision in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, or whether the defendants bear only the lower burden of production, as Goldman Sachs argued. On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that the defendants bear the ultimate burden of persuasion in rebutting the Basic presumption. In so holding, the Court adopted the arguments asserted by Pomerantz and the law professors in their amicus brief.

To state a claim for securities fraud, a plaintiff must establish that she relied on a misrepresentation or omission when she bought or sold securities. The misrepresentation or omission artificially inflates a security’s price until the statement’s false or misleading nature is disclosed — at which point, the stock price falls, harming investors. If each plaintiff bringing securities fraud claims had to prove individual reliance on a specific misrepresentation, however, it would be virtually impossible to bring securities fraud claims as class actions, because each plaintiff would need to individually demonstrate how she relied on the misrepresentation when she bought or sold securities. In Basic, however, the Supreme Court held that securities fraud plaintiffs can invoke a presumption that they relied on a misrepresentation in buying or selling securities because, in an efficient market, the price of a security reflects all the company’s material public statements, including false or misleading statements. The “fraud on the market” presumption of reliance the Supreme Court established in Basic thus obviated the need for each member of a class to show reliance on a case-by-case basis, enabling securities fraud lawsuits to proceed as class actions.

To invoke the Basic presumption, a plaintiff must prove that (1) an alleged misrepresentation was publicly known; (2) it was material (i.e., significant to a “reasonable investor”); (3) the security traded in an efficient market; and (4) the plaintiff traded the security between the time the misrepresentation was made and when the truth was revealed. Once a plaintiff has established these four elements, all similarly situated class members are presumed to have relied upon the misrepresentation in deciding whether to buy or sell the security.

A defendant can rebut this presumption, however, by producing evidence reflecting that the alleged misrepresentation did not affect the price of the security.

Pomerantz’s amicus brief argued that defendants bore the heavier burden of persuasion:

Basic made clear that to overcome the presumption of reliance, defendants must actually “sever the link” between the alleged misrepresentation and the price of the security. 485 U.S. at 248. Halliburton II reaffirmed this holding and suggested that “sever[ing] the link” would require defendants to adduce “more salient” evidence than the plaintiffs. 573 U.S. at 282. Thus, the language of Basic and Halliburton II, together with their focus on advancing Congress’s intent, show that the Court imposed on defendants the burden of persuasion, and not just a burden of production, to rebut the presumption.

Goldman argued that Federal Rule of Evidence 301 places the burden of persuasion on plaintiffs. Rule 301 states that while “the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption,” this “does not shift the burden of persuasion, which remains on the party who had it originally.” Therefore, Goldman argued, defendants need only produce some evidence of no price impact, leaving plaintiffs with the ultimate burden of persuasion.

Pomerantz’s amicus brief, however, argued that (i) courts have the ability to reassign the burden of persuasion to any party regardless of Rule 301, and (ii) the Supreme Court’s prior decisions had assigned to defendants the burden of persuasion with regard to the presumption of reliance. Pomerantz’s amicus brief argued that:

Courts and commentators alike have understood that when necessary to satisfy the demands of the substantive law being applied—including “statutory policy”—courts may diverge from Rule 301’s default rule and allocate the burden of persuasion to the opposing party. Indeed, this Court has declared that Rule 301 “in no way restricts the authority of a court or an agency to change the customary burdens of persuasion in a manner that otherwise would be permissible” (citations omitted).

The brief explained that the language in prior Supreme Court decisions reflected the Court’s intent to assign the burden of persuasion to defendants:

This Court’s decisions in Basic and Halliburton II [Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258 (2014)] reflect precisely this sort of consideration of substantive law of a statute—here section 10(b) of the Securities Act—in both creating the Basic presumption and assigning the burden of persuasion to defendants to rebut it. Thus, the statute and its substantive law apply, not the generally applicable Rule 301.

The Supreme Court adopted Pomerantz’s and the evidence scholars’ arguments. The Court began its analysis by observing that:

We have held that Rule 301 “in no way restricts the authority of a court ... to change the customary burdens of persuasion” pursuant to a federal statute. NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U. S. 393, 404, n. 7 (1983). And we have at times exercised that authority to reassign the burden of persuasion to the defendant upon a prima facie showing by the plaintiff. See, e.g., Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 359, and n. 45 (1977); Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U. S. 747, 772– 773 (1976).

The Court then held that, as Pomerantz and the law professors argued, Basic and Halliburton II did allocate the burden of persuasion to defendants:

Basic held that defendants may rebut the presumption of reliance if they “show that the misrepresentation in fact did not lead to a distortion of price.” 485 U. S., at 248 (emphasis added). To do so, Basic said, defendants may make “[a]ny showing that severs the link between the alleged misrepresentation and ... the price received (or paid) by the plaintiff.” Ibid. (emphasis added). Similarly, Halliburton II held that defendants may rebut the Basic presumption at class certification “by showing ... that the particular misrepresentation at issue did not affect the stock’s market price.” 573 U. S., at 279 (emphasis added).

***
Thus, the best reading of our precedents ... is that the defendant bears the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of price impact.

Notably, in so holding, the Supreme Court cited with approval the Second Circuit’s ruling in Waggoner v. Barclays PLC, 875 F. 3d 79, 99–104 (2d Cir. 2017) that the phrase ‘[a]ny showing that severs the link’ aligns more logically with imposing a burden of persuasion rather than a burden of production.” Pomerantz successfully prosecuted the claims in Barclays, spearheading a similar amicus brief on behalf of numerous leading evidence scholars.

Pomerantz’s and the amicus professors’ win in the Supreme Court ensures that aggrieved investors can continue to aggregate their claims as a class against companies that defraud them.

Emma Gilmore stated, “The Supreme Court’s decision is a significant victory for plaintiffs and against defendants seeking to demolish the presumption of reliance that has allowed aggrieved investors to pursue securities act violations as a class. Twenty-seven of the foremost evidence scholars in the United States backed our position; not a single one backed the defendants’. This important win paves the ground for more victories on behalf of defrauded investors.”

Plaintiff Takeaways from High Court’s Goldman Ruling

POMERANTZ MONITOR | JULY AUGUST 2021

On June 22, 2021, in Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision critical to the future of federal securities fraud class actions. In a July 2 article in Law360, Marc I. Gross and Jeremy A. Lieberman analyzed what that means for the plaintiffs’ bar. The following is an abbreviated recap of their analysis.

The Court held that in determining whether allegedly misleading statements impacted stock prices, (1) a court should consider the “generic nature” of the statements by way of expert opinion, other empirical evidence and “common sense”; and (2) defendants bear the burden of persuasion to demonstrate that the statements had no impact on market prices.

While defendants have framed the holding on the first point as a big win for their bar, Marc and Jeremy beg to differ. [Eds: For a discussion of the second point, see this issue’s article on Pomerantz’s amicus brief.]

The generic nature of statements has often been considered at the motion-to-dismiss and class stages. What the Supreme Court made clear, though, was that the generic nature of statements did not render them per se unworthy of class certification, but rather, it is one factor to be weighed along with empirical evidence and expert testimony regarding actual price impact.

A central element of securities fraud claims is proof that investors relied upon allegedly misleading statements when purchasing shares. Following the 1966 adoption of Rule 23 in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts wrestled with how to prove reliance on a basis common to all class members. If each investor had to prove they actually read the misstatement, individual issues of proof would predominate, rendering securities fraud class actions unmanageable.

The concept that defendants’ misrepresentations create a fraud on the market was first developed by Abe Pomerantz, pioneer of shareholder rights litigation and founder of Pomerantz LLP, in the 1970 case, Herbst v. Able. Thereafter, courts recognized that if companies inflated their reported earnings, the stock market price of their securities would likely be inflated as well, thereby causing all investors to be defrauded.

In 1988, the Supreme Court embraced this concept in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, formalizing a “presumption” of reliance where stocks were traded in “efficient” markets, i.e., markets that rapidly priced all public information (including misinformation).

Basic also held that the presumption could be rebutted if individual investors relied on nonpublic information. The Supreme Court revisited this presumption in 2014’s Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund Inc. decision. While reaffirming the presumption’s viability, the court expanded the grounds for its rebuttal. Defendants could also cite evidence demonstrating that the misleading statements had no impact on the stock price.

The dispute in Goldman arose over market impact, or lack thereof, of statements by Goldman representing that the investment bank had “extensive procedures and controls that are designed to identify and address conflicts of interest” and that “integrity and honesty are at the heart of our business.”

The plaintiffs argued that these statements were materially misleading, citing revelations that Goldman had assembled a portfolio of mortgage-backed securities for the benefit of a short-seller, without disclosing this to Goldman clients to whom the bank sold the portfolios and who lost billions of dollars in the 2008 Great Recession. The SEC fined Goldman $550 million for its misconduct.

Goldman moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that its statements were too generic and aspirational to warrant reliance. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion in 2012.

At the class motion stage, Goldman again argued that the generic nature of the statements had no market price impact, focusing on the absence of any price change when the statements were issued, nor when journalists questioned the company’s actual client conflict practices.

The plaintiff countered that Goldman had consistently denied any wrongdoing and that its misleading statements effectively maintained the price of Goldman shares until the truth was revealed, causing analysts to question the investment bank’s reputation and the stock price to crater.

The district court twice found that defendants failed to show that the Goldman stock price was not impacted by the misstatements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed twice. However, in the second decision, U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Sullivan dissented, asserting:

The obvious explanation for why the share price didn’t move after 36 separate news stories on the subject of Goldman’s conflicts is that no reasonable investor would have attached any significance to the generic statements on which Plaintiffs’ claims are based.

The majority retorted:

What the dissent really wants to do is to revisit the question of whether the statements are too general as a matter of law to be deemed material.

Goldman sought certiorari based on Judge Sullivan’s dissent, though its opening brief did not embrace his per se analysis, pivoting instead to the argument that generic nature is just one factor considered in determining price impact. Plaintiffs thus had no reason to disagree.

In her opinion on this issue, in which all the justices joined, Justice Barrett held that, in determining the price impact of generic statements, courts “should be open to all probative evidence on that question — qualitative as well as quantitative — aided by a good dose of common sense,” regardless of whether the issue overlapped with questions of materiality.

Critical to going forward is Justice Barrett’s observation that there may be a “mismatch between the contents of the misrepresentation and the corrective disclosure.” The Court suggested that this could occur where the earlier misstatement was very broad (e.g., “We have faith in our business model”), while the later corrective statement is specific (e.g., “Our fourth quarter earnings did not meet expectations”).

Frankly, both statements are generic and arguably a mismatch, since nothing in the prior statement targeted specific earnings growth. In contrast, in Goldman, the company stated it had strong procedures to prevent conflict of interests, yet those procedures had been flaunted.

Undoubtedly, class certification motions will now shift to battles over the degree to which misstatements and corrective disclosures match.

Courts have recognized that corrective disclosure need not be the “mirror image” of the alleged misrepresentation. Plaintiffs will likely argue that a sufficient degree of overlap in the before and after statements, coupled with empirical evidence (such as analysts’ interpretation of the corrective statements), should suffice to support certification. This will leave for later determination the degree to which the post-corrective stock price decline can be linked to the prior misstatement — an issue that experts often sort out through confounded event analysis.

Also relevant to the evaluation of price impact of such generic statements is their context; e.g., whether the generic statement was intended to distinguish the company from its own prior misconduct or that of its peers.

Plaintiffs will also likely argue that in assessing price impact, courts should consider not just what defendants said, but what they omitted. It is well settled, as expressed by the Second Circuit in 2016’s In re: Vivendi SA Securities Litigation, that “once a company speaks on an issue or topic, there is a duty to tell the whole truth, even when there is no existing independent duty to disclose information” on the matter.

In other words, having opted to burnish its corporate image by professing its integrity and internal control procedures to prevent conflicts, Goldman was arguably duty bound to disclose all related material information lest investors be misled by the omission thereof, including the risk that it had departed from that professed policy. Had Goldman acknowledged such departures, its stock price would likely have declined much earlier than it did.

Finally, courts will need to wrestle with just what is generic and what is meaningful in the minds of investors. This determination has often rested on the courts’ intuitive conception of a reasonable investor. Empirical studies have demonstrated that investors place considerable stock in the perception of management’s integrity and reliability, and that a substantial portion of a company’s market value is a function of that reputation, which such generic statements serve to burnish.

If such generic statements were intended to reassure investors of the company’s reliability and integrity, plaintiffs may well argue that such statements maintained the premium that investors were willing to pay for a company’s strong reputation. This arguably should bear upon class certification of generic statements, as well as their actionability at the pleading stage.

You may read Marc and Jeremy’s entire article on Law360.

Pomerantz Submits Amicus Brief to Supreme Court

POMERANTZ MONITOR | MARCH APRIL 2021

By The Editors

In a hotly contested issue before the United States Supreme Court affecting investors’ rights to recoup damages from publicly traded companies as a result of securities fraud, Pomerantz LLP submitted the sole amicus brief on behalf of twenty-seven of the foremost U.S. scholars in the field of evidence. One of the two issues before the High Court in Goldman Sachs Group Inc. et al v. Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, et al. (No. 20-222) squarely affects investors’ ability to pursue claims collectively as a class: whether, in order to rebut the presumption of reliance originated by the Court in the landmark Basic v. Levinson decision, defendants bear the burden of persuasion—as every circuit court to address the issue has held—or whether they bear only the much lower burden of production, as Goldman Sachs argues. The burden of production is easily satisfied by the mere recital of words or the introduction of evidence without actual persuasive effect.

When interpreting statutes, the Supreme Court and the circuit courts sometimes create presumptions to best effectuate congressional intent. That is exactly how the Basic presumption came to be. The Court determined that the congressional policy embodied in the Securities Act of 1934 called for the full and accurate disclosure of information related to securities to promote the integrity of the market and the setting of “just” prices. The Court reasoned that advancing that goal would best be achieved through a presumption of class-wide reliance if plaintiffs show, among other things, that a defendant made material misrepresentations that affected a security’s price.

Pomerantz argues that Federal Rule of Evidence 301, which shifts the burden of production but not that of persuasion, is merely a default rule that, by its own terms, is inapplicable because the substantive law at issue necessarily demands that the defendants actually show, i.e., prove, that the presumption is defeated. It would be palpably unfair – and inconsistent with the reason behind the Supreme Court’s creation of the presumption in the first place – to impose on investors the high burden of satisfying the presumption, only to have defendants overcome it by merely introducing some evidence creating a dispute as to price impact.

“Institutional and retail investors alike have the right to hold those that defraud them accountable,” said Emma Gilmore, the Pomerantz Partner spearheading the effort, “and pursuing their claims as a class has been a critical step in their pursuit of justice.”

Read Pomerantz’s full amicus brief to the Supreme Court at pomlaw.com/AmicusMar2021.