Goldman Sachs Group Inc v Arkansas Teacher Retirement System
US Supreme Court (Merits Stage)
(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.
The Retail Litigation Center filed amicus briefs at the U.S. Supreme Court 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 briefs were drafted by Cara Peterman and Susan Hurd of RLC member Alston & Bird.
RLC Brief Sept 2020 (Cert. Stage)
Please use the DOWNLOAD button below to access the RLC's Brief.