Basic Inc. v. Levinson

Last updated
Basic Inc. v. Levinson
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 2, 1987
Decided March 7, 1988
Full case nameBasic Incorporated, et al., Petitioners v. Max L. Levinson et al.
Citations485 U.S. 224 ( more )
108 S. Ct. 978; 99 L. Ed. 2d 194; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 1197; 56 U.S.L.W. 4232; Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 93,645; 24 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 961; 10 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 308
Case history
PriorClass certified, granted summary judgment to defendants, Levinson v. Basic Inc., No. C79-1220, 1984 WL 1152 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 1984), reversed, 786 F.2d 741 (6th Cir. 1986); cert. granted, 479 U.S. 1083(1987).
Holding
Plaintiffs are entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reliance in a 10b-5 case, based on a fraud-on-the-market theory.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Case opinions
MajorityBlackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Stevens; White, O'Connor (parts I, II, III)
Concur/dissentWhite, joined by O'Connor
Rehnquist, Scalia, and Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rule 10b-5

Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States articulated the "fraud-on-the-market theory" as giving rise to a rebuttable presumption of reliance in securities fraud cases. [1]

Contents

Background

Combustion Engineering, Inc. sought to acquire Basic, Inc., and had engaged in discussions with Basic's officers and directors. Three months after these discussions began, Basic asked the New York Stock Exchange to suspend trading in its shares and issued a release stating that it had been "approached" by another company concerning a merger. Basic president Max Muller publicly denied Basic's involvement in any merger discussions. The next day, Basic's board approved Combustion's tender offer for all outstanding shares.

Plaintiff Max L. Levinson was a Basic shareholder who brought a class action suit against Basic and its directors, alleging that he and other shareholders were injured by selling Basic shares at artificially depressed prices in a market affected by—and relying on—Basic's misleading statements. Plaintiffs alleged that Basic's misrepresentations violated § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio certified the class, finding that plaintiffs were entitled to a presumption of reliance on Basic's public statements, and therefore that common questions of fact or law predominated over particular questions pertaining to individual plaintiffs. However, on the merits the court granted Basic's motion for summary judgment, finding the statements to be immaterial. [2]

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed class certification, joining a number of other circuits in accepting the fraud-on-the-market theory. [3] The Court of Appeals also reversed and remanded the decision on summary judgment, holding that although Basic did not have an affirmative duty to disclose the merger discussions, it could not release misleading statements. The U.S. Supreme Court then granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the materiality issue and determine the propriety of the fraud-on-the-market theory.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority, first examined the underlying policy behind the Securities Exchange Act: to protect investors against manipulation of stock prices. The Securities and Exchange Commission promulgated Rule 10b-5 to prevent fraud and enforce the Act's requirements.

Materiality of preliminary merger discussions

Blackmun reviewed the standards of materiality, including the holding in TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. , that "an omitted fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in deciding how to vote." [4] This standard was then expressly adopted for § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

The Court re-iterated that where there is a duty to disclose, management must disclose or abstain from trading. Where there is no duty to disclose, the Court will not question the timing of disclosure. But if management is under no duty to disclose and misrepresents a material fact, management may be held accountable. In other words, the Court was not concerned about the timing of disclosure, only its accuracy and completeness. The Court then went on to establish a standard for determining the materiality of merger discussions.

Blackmun reviewed and rejected the Third Circuit test that merger discussions become material only when an agreement in principle has been reached, finding that standard too "rigid" and "artificial." Blackmun also rejected the Sixth Circuit test, which held that publicly denying the existence of merger discussions makes those discussions material by virtue of denying their existence. He reasoned that it is not enough for a statement to be untrue if it is insignificant. Blackmun declined to adopt a test that hinged on a single event, holding instead that the materiality of merger discussions is always a function of the probability of the completion of the merger and the magnitude of the transaction.

Reliance and the fraud-on-the-market theory

The fraud-on-the-market theory is the idea that stock prices are a function of all material information about the company and its business. It applies in open and developed securities markets, where it can be assumed that all material information is available to investors. The theory states that under these conditions, there is a causal link between any misstatement and any stock purchaser, because the misstatements defraud the entire market and thus affect the price of the stock. Therefore, a material misstatement's effect on an individual purchaser is no less significant than the effect on the entire market. The question before the court was whether this entitles an individual stock purchaser a presumption of reliance, even if the purchaser did not directly rely on the misstatements.

Observing that the reality of modern securities markets is such that face-to-face transactions are rare, Justice Blackmun noted that requiring a showing of actual reliance would effectively prevent plaintiffs from ever proceeding as a class action. Also finding that investors often rely on market price, he found the rebuttable presumption of reliance (through the fraud-on-the-market theory) to be a reasonable compromise between the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and the securities fraud element of reliance. Blackmun further noted that both Congress's intent and recent empirical studies reflect the idea that open markets incorporate all material information into share price.

The Court thereby adopted a rebuttable presumption of reliance, based on the fraud-on-the-market theory. Blackmun noted that defendants could rebut the presumption by showing that there was no link between the misstatements and plaintiff's price paid or received.

The Court further noted that, should a corporation wish to maintain the confidentiality of its merger talks without denying the chance of a merger, its directors need only state that they had "no comment" regarding any potential merger. [5]

Blackmun vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case.

Related Research Articles

Securities Act of 1933 US federal law regulating securities

The Securities Act of 1933, also known as the 1933 Act, the Securities Act, the Truth in Securities Act, the Federal Securities Act, and the '33 Act, was enacted by the United States Congress on May 27, 1933, during the Great Depression and after the stock market crash of 1929. It is an integral part of United States securities regulation. It is legislated pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. 104–67 (text)(PDF), 109 Stat. 737 ("PSLRA") implemented several substantive changes in the United States, affecting certain cases brought under the federal securities laws, including changes related to pleading, discovery, liability, class representation, and awards fees and expenses.

SEC Rule 10b-5, codified at 17 CFR 240.10b-5, is one of the most important rules targeting securities fraud promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to its authority granted under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The rule prohibits any act or omission resulting in fraud or deceit in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. The issue of insider trading is given further definition in SEC Rule 10b5-1.

United States securities regulation

Securities regulation in the United States is the field of U.S. law that covers transactions and other dealings with securities. The term is usually understood to include both federal and state-level regulation by governmental regulatory agencies, but sometimes may also encompass listing requirements of exchanges like the New York Stock Exchange and rules of self-regulatory organizations like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the extent to which state law securities fraud class action claims were preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA). The Court unanimously ruled that SLUSA barred state law "holder" claims, which are based on losses caused when a shareholder retains stock due to fraud instead of selling it, even though federal securities laws only provided a private cause of action to those suffering losses caused by the purchase or sale of stock. The Court's decision resolved a split among the circuits and closed a significant loophole in the coverage of SLUSA, which it based on the broad language used in the Act and the policies behind it.

Dennis G. Jacobs is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He previously served as Chief Judge of the Second Circuit from October 1, 2006 to August 31, 2013.

TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States articulated the requirement of materiality in securities fraud cases.

Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164 (1994), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held private plaintiffs may not maintain aiding and abetting suit under Securities Exchange Act § 10(b).

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992), is a 1992 Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that even though an equipment manufacturer lacked significant market power in the primary market for its equipment—copier-duplicators and other imaging equipment—nonetheless, it could have sufficient market power in the secondary aftermarket for repair parts to be liable under the antitrust laws for its exclusionary conduct in the aftermarket. The reason was that it was possible that, once customers were committed to the particular brand by having purchased a unit, they were "locked in" and no longer had any realistic alternative to turn to for repair parts.

Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. 804 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "securities fraud plaintiffs need not prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification." Their decision cleared the way for class action to proceed against Halliburton over its alleged misrepresentation of facts material to the value of its stock price.

Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning arbitration of private securities fraud claims arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. By a 5–4 margin the Court held that its holding in a 1953 case, Wilko v. Swan, that the nonwaiver provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 prevented the mandatory arbitration of such claims, did not apply to claims under the 1934 Act due to differences in the corresponding language of the two statutes, reversing a decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that had affirmed what had been considered settled law, despite the lack of a precedent. It likewise held that claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) were arbitrable, affirming an order from the district court that the Second Circuit had also upheld.

Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427 (1953), is a United States Supreme Court decision on the arbitration of securities fraud claims. It had originally been brought by an investor who claimed his broker at Hayden Stone had sold stock to him without disclosing that he and the firm were the primary sellers. By a 7–2 margin the Court held that the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 barring any waiver of rights under that statute took precedence over the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) requirement that arbitration clauses in contracts be given full effect by federal courts. It reversed a decision to the contrary by a divided panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Whether providing services as an accountant or auditor, a certified public accountant (CPA) owes a duty of care to the client and third parties who foreseeably rely on the accountant's work. Accountants can be sued for negligence or malpractice in the performance of their duties, and for fraud.

The fraud-on-the-market theory is the idea that stock prices are a function of all material information about the company and its business. It applies to securities markets, where it can be assumed that all material information is available to investors. The theory states that under these conditions, there is a causal link between any misstatement and any stock purchaser, because the misstatements defraud the entire market and thus affect the price of the stock. Therefore, a material misstatement's effect on an individual purchaser is no less significant than the effect on the entire market.

A securities class action(SCA), or securities fraud class action, is a lawsuit filed by investors who bought or sold a company’s publicly traded securities within a specific period of time and suffered economic injury as a result of violations of the securities laws.

Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding class action certification for a securities fraud claim. Under the fraud-on-the-market theory, the Court had to inquire as to if markets are economically efficient. The Court presumed they are.

United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U.S. 321 (1963), also called the Philadelphia Bank case, was a 1963 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended in 1950, applied to bank mergers. It was the first case in which the Supreme Court considered the application of antitrust laws to the commercial banking industry. In addition to holding the statute applicable to bank mergers, the Court established a presumption that mergers that covered at least 30 percent of the relevant market were presumptively unlawful.

SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. is a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which articulated standards for a number of aspects of insider trading law under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. In particular, it set out standards for materiality of inside information, effective disclosure of such information, and what constitutes a "misleading" statement. Texas Gulf Sulphur represented the first time a federal court held that insider trading violated federal securities law and remained the leading case on insider trading for a decade. Over time, the U.S. Supreme Court embraced some of its holdings while rejecting others. The case continues to receive significant scholarly attention.

Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term.

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a 2021 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States related to securities fraud class actions.

References

  1. ↑ Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988).
  2. ↑ Levinson v. Basic Inc.,1984WL1152( N.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 1984).
  3. ↑ Levinson v. Basic Inc., 786F.2d741 (6th Cir.1986).
  4. ↑ TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. , 426 U.S. 438, 449 (1976).
  5. ↑ William A. Klein, Business Associations, 8th ed., Foundation Press (2012).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.