In A Motion For Class Certification In Securities Action, Proof Of Misrepresentations Or Misleading Omissions Is Not A Prerequisite.

In a securities fraud action brought by retirement plans under section 10b of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, plaintiffs sought to certify a class. In such a class certification action, a plaintiff must prove reliance on a material misrepresentation or omission made by a defendant. Plaintiffs invoked the “fraud on the market” presumption which provides that the price of a security traded in an efficient market will reflect all publicly available information about a company, and accordingly, a buyer of the security may be presumed to have relied on that information in purchasing the security. Here, defendant contended that certification had to be denied unless plaintiffs proved its allegations that defendant’s misrepresentations and misleading omissions materially affected the price of the stock. The United States Supreme Court held that such proof is not a prerequisite to class certification.  Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds  (U.S. Sup. Ct.; February 27, 2013) 133 S.Ct. 1184, [24 Fla.L.Weekly Fed.S 67].