Goldman Sachs Group Inc v Arkansas Teacher Retirement System

US Supreme Court (Cert. Stage)

Question Presented
(1) Whether a defendant in a securities class action may rebut the presumption of classwide reliance recognized in Basic Inc. v. Levinson by pointing to the generic nature of the alleged misstatements in showing that the statements had no impact on the price of the security, even though that evidence is also relevant to the substantive element of materiality; and (2) whether a defendant seeking to rebut the Basic presumption has only a burden of production or also the ultimate burden of persuasion.

Brief Filed
The Retail Litigation Center filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in support of certiorari asking the Court to consider the type of evidence that a court may consider before a class is certified in securities litigation. At issue is whether plaintiffs in securities class actions can obtain class certification based on nothing more than generic aspirational statements (of the type that publicly held companies, including retailers, may make in ESG and other contexts) that did not impact the share price when made. The brief was drafted by Cara Peterman and Susan Hurd of RLC member Alston & Bird.

Please use the DOWNLOAD button below to access the RLC's Brief.


Stay in the know

Subscribe to our newsletter