Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Second Circuit Reiterates: Defendants Must Satisfy Burden of Persuasion Through a Preponderance of the Evidence to Rebut Basic Presumption in Securities Fraud Class Actions

January 30, 2018 by Carlton Fields

The Second Circuit, in keeping with its recent decision in Waggoner v. Barclays, reaffirmed that defendants must satisfy the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence to rebut the presumption established by the Supreme Court in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson. The plaintiffs-appellees, who had acquired shares of Goldman Sachs stock between 2007 and 2010, claimed violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b–5, based on Goldman’s alleged misstatements regarding its efforts to avoid conflicts of interest. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that these statements were false and misleading because Goldman acted in direct conflict with the interests of its clients in at least four collateralized debt obligation transactions involving subprime mortgages between 2006 and 2007, most notably the Abacus 2007 AC–1 (“Abacus”) transaction involving hedge-fund client Paulson & Co. The plaintiffs claimed that Goldman’s role in Abacus, which resulted in a $550 million SEC settlement, “allow[ed] a favored client to benefit at the expense of Goldman’s other clients,” creating a conflict of interest at odds with the company’s public statements.

The plaintiffs moved for class certification, and, to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement regarding the reliance element of their securities fraud claims, they invoked the Basic presumption, under which a court “presumes that the market price [of shares] reflected the misstatements and that all class members relied on that price[.]” The defendants, Goldman and several of its directors, sought to rebut the Basic presumption through declarations and affidavits stating that Goldman stock experienced no price increase on the dates of the conflict of interest statements and no price decrease on several occasions prior to 2010 when the press reported Goldman’s conflicts of interest in the Abacus and related transactions. The district court applied the Basic presumption in favor of the plaintiffs and found that the defendants’ evidence failed to “conclusively” rebut the presumption. The district court certified the class, and the defendants appealed under Rule 23(f).

On appeal, the defendants argued that, in accordance with Federal Rule of Evidence 301 and the language of Basic, they needed only to produce evidence to rebut the Basic presumption, and that the district court imposed an impermissibly high burden by requiring them to present conclusive proof that there was no price impact. The Second Circuit reaffirmed its finding in Barclays, which was decided after the district court’s order, reiterating that a defendant seeking to rebut the Basic presumption must satisfy the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence – a higher burden than the mere production of evidence. The panel went on to conclude that “[a]lthough the District Court acknowledged that standard in a footnote,” it was “unclear . . . whether the [district] court required more of defendants than a preponderance of the evidence” when it found that the defendants failed to “conclusively” prove a “complete absence of price impact.” The panel therefore vacated the district court’s order and remanded for reconsideration of the defendants’ evidence in light of the Barclays standard.

Ark. Teachers Ret. Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc., No. 16-250, 2018 WL 385215 (2d Cir. Jan. 12, 2018).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Supreme Court Says No More Spokeo: Portents for Other Standing Cases?

Next Article »

Too Fast and Furious: Ninth Circuit Unwinds Hyundai and Kia Nationwide Class Action Settlement
Avatar

About Carlton Fields

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.