Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds

Securities: damages in a private securities-fraud action under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b–5: to recover damages in a private securities-fraud action under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b–5, a plaintiff must prove, among other things, reliance on a material misrepresentation or omission made by the de­fendant. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U. S. ___, ___. Requiring proof of direct reliance “would place an unnecessarily un­realistic evidentiary burden on a plaintiff who has traded on an im­personal market.” Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U. S. 224, 245. Thus, this Court has endorsed a “fraud-on-the-market” theory, which per­mits securities-fraud plaintiffs to invoke a rebuttable presumption of reliance on public, material misrepresentations regarding securities traded in an efficient market. Id., at 241–249. The fraud-on-the­ market theory facilitates the certification of securities-fraud class ac­tions by permitting reliance to be proved on a classwide basis. Invoking the fraud-on-the-market theory, respondent Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds (Connecticut Retirement) sought certification of a securities-fraud class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) against biotechnology company Amgen Inc. and several of its officers (collectively, Amgen). The District Court certified the class, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Ninth Circuit rejected Amgen’s argument that Connecticut Retirement was re­quired to prove the materiality of Amgen’s alleged misrepresenta­tions and omissions before class certification in order to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirement that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” The Ninth Circuit also held that the District Court did not err in refusing to consider rebuttal evidence that Amgen had presented on the issue of materiality at the class-certification stage. Held: proof of materiality is not a prerequisite to certification of a secu­rities-fraud class action seeking money damages for alleged violations of §10(b) and Rule 10b–5 (U.S.S.Ct., 27.02.13, Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, J. Ginsburg).

Papiers- valeurs (securities) : action en dommages-intérêts basée sur une fraude en matière de transactions portant sur des papiers-valeurs. Pour se faire adjuger ses conclusions en dommages-intérêts, le demandeur doit notamment prouver s'être fié à une fausse représentation ou à une fausse omission de nature matérielle faite par le défendeur. N'est pas requise la preuve d'un lien de causalité direct entre la tromperie et l'acte ou l'omission du demandeur sur le marché. Ainsi, la Cour retient la théorie de la "fraude sur le marché", selon laquelle le demandeur peut invoquer la présomption réfragable qu'il s'est fié à de fausses déclarations matérielles et publiques relatives à des papiers-valeurs échangés sur un marché effectif. Cette théorie facilite la certification d'actions de classe en matière de papiers-valeurs, en permettant d'apporter la preuve de "s'être fié à" au niveau de la classe elle-même et non au niveau d'un demandeur individuel. Est rejeté l'argument consistant à soutenir que les demandeurs sont tenus de prouver la matérialité de la représentation frauduleuse pour obtenir la certification de la classe.