Search results
3 results
Sort by:
November 1, 2017Roger B. Greenberg, Zach Wolfe
Does Halliburton II Allow Defendants to Prove a Lack of “Correctiveness” to Defeat Class Certification?
In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (“Halliburton II”), the U.S. Supreme Court held that defendants in federal securities fraud cases may defeat class certification by proving a lack of “price impact” at the class certification stage. This holding gave defendants in such cases a significant new opportunity to defeat class certification. But lower courts so far have not given Halliburton II the robust application that Halliburton and other corporate defendants may have hoped for.
March 1, 2013Roger B. Greenberg, Thane Tyler Sponsel III
Restoring the Balance of Class Certification Power in the Fifth Circuit: the United States Supreme Court’s Opinion in Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton, Co.
The Fifth Circuit, like other circuits, occasionally finds itself in conflict with the other circuit courts. Oscar Private Equity Investments v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc. and Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co. created one of these conflicts in the context of class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. On June 6, 2011, the United States Supreme Court resolved this conflict with its unanimous decision in Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co.
November 21, 2015Roger B. Greenberg, Thane Tyler Sponsel Iii, Zachariah Wolfe
Halliburton’s Second Trip to Supreme Court: Basic-Ally the End of Securities Fraud Class Actions?
It is a rare day when the United States Supreme Court grants certiorari twice in the same 1case. In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (“Halliburton II”), Halliburton is hoping that its bite at this apple tastes as sweet as the plaintiff’s did during the first appeal. At stake is the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption adopted in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988) and the importance the presumption plays in securities fraud class actions.