Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds
United States Supreme Court
568 U.S. 455, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds (Connecticut Retirement) (plaintiff) lost money trading Amgen, Inc. (Amgen) (defendant) stock and filed a securities-fraud lawsuit. Connecticut Retirement alleged that Amgen, a biotechnology company, had made misrepresentations concerning two of its drugs, artificially inflating its stock prices. When the misrepresentations were later publicly revealed, Amgen’s stock prices fell. Connecticut Retirement sought class-action certification, relying on the fraud-on-the-market theory. Under the fraud-on-the-market theory, the price of a security traded on an efficient market is presumed to be based on all information about a company available to the public, creating a rebuttable presumption that a purchaser relied on that information in deciding to buy the security. Amgen conceded the efficiency of the market on which its stock was traded but argued that the court could not certify a plaintiff’s class unless Connecticut Retirement proved that Amgen’s misrepresentations had been material. The district court disagreed, certifying a plaintiff’s class of all investors who bought Amgen stock between the date of the first alleged misrepresentations and the date that Amgen corrected the misrepresentations. The United States Supreme Court granted Amgen’s certiorari petition.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ginsburg, J.)
Concurrence (Alito, J.)
Dissent (Thomas, J.)
Dissent (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 825,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
