Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System

141 S.Ct. 1951, 594 U.S. 113 (2021)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System

United States Supreme Court
141 S.Ct. 1951, 594 U.S. 113 (2021)

Facts

Pension funds including the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (collectively, the funds) (plaintiffs) brought a securities-fraud class action in federal district court against The Goldman Sachs Group and former Goldman Sachs executives (collectively, Goldman) (defendants). The funds alleged securities fraud under an inflation-maintenance theory, asserting that Goldman had maintained an artificially inflated stock price by repeatedly making generic statements about Goldman’s ability to manage conflicts of interest based on Goldman’s purported internal procedures and policies. The funds claimed that these statements were false or misleading because Goldman actually had several undisclosed conflicts of interest and that when the truth about the conflicts was revealed, Goldman’s stock price dropped, causing the funds to suffer losses. The funds sought certification of a class of shareholders based on a presumption—recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Basic Inc. v. Levinson—that in trading a company’s shares, investors have relied on a company’s public material misrepresentations because those misrepresentations would be reflected in the shares’ market price in an efficient market. Goldman sought to rebut the Basic presumption, and thereby defeat class certification, by showing a lack of price impact (i.e., that any alleged misrepresentations had no impact on Goldman’s stock prices). The district court certified the class, and the Second Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. Before the Supreme Court, Goldman argued that the Second Circuit had erred by (1) treating the generic nature of Goldman’s alleged misrepresentations as irrelevant to price impact and (2) requiring Goldman to bear the burden of persuasion on price impact.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Barrett, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Gorsuch, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Sotomayor, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 745,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership