BarbriSFCourseDetails
  • videocam Live Online with Live Q&A
  • calendar_month November 20, 2025 @ 1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT
  • signal_cellular_alt Intermediate
  • card_travel Class Action and Other Litigation
  • schedule 90 minutes

Securities Class Certification Under Inflation-Maintenance Theory: Rebutting Price Impact

Applying Goldman; Lessons From San Diego County Employees Retirement Association v. Johnson & Johnson

  • videocam Live Online with Live Q&A
  • calendar_month November 20, 2025 @ 1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT
  • signal_cellular_alt Intermediate
  • card_travel Class Action and Other Litigation
  • schedule 90 minutes
BarbriPdBannerMessage

Description

Rule 10b-5 securities class actions filed after an adverse company event are on the rise. Plaintiffs routinely proceed, as they did in the J&J case, under an "inflation-maintenance" or a “price-maintenance” theory: the company made misrepresentations (or withheld/delayed disclosures) to keep share prices from falling. 

To get a securities fraud class certified, plaintiffs must show that "reliance" on the alleged misrepresentations can be proved on a class-wide basis. Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), created a rebuttable presumption of class-wide reliance if plaintiffs bought their shares in an "efficient" market at market price after the alleged misstatements were publicly made but before the truth was revealed. If defendants can show that the alleged misrepresentations had no price impact on the stock, the Basic presumption of class-wide reliance is rebutted, and the class will not be certified. 

What evidence defendants need, whether they have to show zero price impact, and what evidence courts may consider in deciding price impact at the certification stage, particularly in inflation-maintenance cases, are crucial, complex, and developing issues. The Supreme Court's decision in Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement Sys., 594 U.S. 113 (2021), broke new ground by holding that courts may consider the generic nature of the alleged misrepresentations. This led the Second Circuit to conclude, on remand, that defendants adequately showed the misrepresentations had no price impact, and it went on to de-certify the class.

The second appellate court to apply Goldman, in J&J, focused on whether the subsequent corrective disclosures did or did not actually correct anything and how courts should decide that as well as whether the defendants' evidence met the preponderance of the evidence standard necessary to rebut the Basic presumption. Defendants have contended, however, that the Third Circuit misapplied Goldman and opened the door to "easy" certification.

Listen as the expert panel of class action lawyers discusses rebuttal of price impact in inflation-maintenance / price-maintenance theory class actions. 

Presented By

Attorneying Annie Dc
Davis Brown Law Firm - Des Moines

Bio for Annie Attorney; loves horses and arguments -- SAYAN Update

Big Boat
The Mogy Law Firm - Memphis

This is a bio for Big Boat. Big Boat is an avid reader and unicyclist.

Roller Coaster , CPA, MST
Lee's Test Firm

This is a bio for speaker, Roller Coaster. Roller Coaster enjoys walks on the beach and pizza with pineapple.

Credit Information
  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.


  • Live Online


    On Demand

Date + Time

  • event

    Thursday, November 20, 2025

  • schedule

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

I. Overview of class certification battlegrounds in securities class action litigation

II. How the Basic presumption operates under inflation-maintenance and price-maintenance theories

III. Lack of price impact by analyzing

A. Standard of proof 

B. Goldman SCOTUS decision

C. Goldman on remand

D. J&J

IV. Practical guidance for plaintiffs and defendants

The panel will review these and other important issues:

  • Are defendants required to show zero price impact in inflation-maintenance cases?
  • Does the J&J decision ignore the "efficient market" principles that underlie the Basic presumption?
  • How do courts decide if alleged misrepresentations "match" alleged corrective disclosures?
  • How does a defendant sever the link between misrepresentation and price?