Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.

Last updated
Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 5, 2014
Decided June 23, 2014
Full case nameHalliburton Co., et al. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., fka Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc.
Docket no. 13-317
Citations573 U.S. 258 ( more )
134 S. Ct. 2398; 189 L. Ed. 2d 339
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorErica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 131 S. Ct. 2179, 563 U.S., 180 L. Ed. 2d 24 (2011).
Holding
Securities fraud defendants must be afforded an opportunity to rebut the presumption of reliance before class certification with evidence of a lack of price impact.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
ConcurrenceGinsburg, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor
ConcurrenceThomas (in judgment), joined by Scalia, Alito
Laws applied
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5

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.

Contents

Background

Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney arranged a merger with competitor Dresser Industries, which had been directed for decades by Prescott Bush. [1] Halliburton publicly promoted the merger as a "win-win", and plaintiffs, including the Archbishop of Milwaukee, bought equity in Halliburton off the stock market. [2] What Halliburton did not reveal was that Dresser's asbestos liabilities nearly exceeded its purchase price. [3] Cheney then resigned, sold off $40 million of his Halliburton stock, and joined the Bush campaign. [4] When Halliburton publicly revealed its asbestos liabilities its stock dropped 72% [5] The Archbishop sued, bringing a class action in the Dallas federal district court, alleging securities fraud.

SEC Rule 10b-5 securities fraud requires a private plaintiff to prove that her economic loss was caused by reliance on the defendant's material misrepresentation. [6] Certification for a class action requires class members to have common questions of law or fact that predominate the controversy. Common reliance on public information is presumed if plaintiffs bought off a well developed market under the fraud on the market theory developed in Basic Inc. v. Levinson . [6]

Halliburton argued that before the class could be certified the plaintiffs also needed to prove their loss was caused by Halliburton's falsehoods. The District Court agreed and denied class certification, meaning that the plaintiffs would each individually have to bring their claims. [6] The denial was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit. [7]

In his first argument before the Court since Bush v. Gore , David Boies represented plaintiffs. In Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co. the Supreme Court vacated and remanded. Finding the fraud on the market presumption only addresses members’ common reliance, the Court held that plaintiffs did not need to prove loss causation when seeking class certification. [8]

On remand Halliburton argued that because its falsehoods had no effect on its stock price plaintiffs could not have commonly relied on the falsehoods. [6] The district court found that argument could only be made later during trial, granted class certification, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. [9] Halliburton petitioned the Supreme Court for another writ of certiorari, this time arguing that the fraud on the market precedent should be overruled, and the petition was granted.

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by five other justices, finds no special reason to overrule Supreme Court precedent. [6] Addressing Halliburton's contention that the Basic presumption is a “judicial construct” that differs from fraud in securities filings, Roberts notes that because this point was made by the dissenters in Basic, it has already been rejected. Furthermore, Roberts notes that stare decisis has special force because Congress is free to change the Basic presumption, and subsequently has chosen not to do so despite two major securities fraud reforms. [6]

Roberts then turns to market capitalism’s fundamental economic theory. The efficient market hypothesis holds that the ideal market price fully reflects all available information. The Court in Basic Inc. v. Levinson (1988) had relied on the hypothesis to presume that any false information about a stock would be reflected in the stock’s market price and, therefore, be relied upon by investors that bought the stock off the market. [6] A contentious core tenet of the Chicago school of economics the hypothesis has proven difficult to disprove and, in 2013 the Nobel Prize in Economics was jointly awarded to Eugene Fama, the hypothesis’s creator, and Bob Shiller, the hypothesis’s primary critic. [10]

Halliburton argued that its misrepresentations did not impact its stock price because the efficient market hypothesis is empirically false and capital markets are not fundamentally efficient. Roberts rejects this contention, finding that information does, in fact, effect stock price. [11] While Halliburton may not have traded in an ideal frictionless market, Roberts finds that “in making the presumption rebuttable, Basic recognized that market efficiency is a matter of degree and accordingly made it a matter of proof.”

Halliburton also argued that presuming reliance on market price is wrong because investors are actually indifferent to price. Value investing was offered as an example of traders who invest believing that the true value of a company is different from its market price. Roberts rejects this, finding, no, value investors are not indifferent to price and, in fact, their investment strategy presupposes the market price will eventually move towards a more accurate valuation.

Other than overruling Basic, Halliburton had alternatively asked that instead of asking plaintiffs to prove the stock traded in a well developed market, plaintiffs should be required to directly prove price impacts from the falsehoods. Roberts notes that the Basic presumption is actually a presumption of price impact and a presumption of reliance, and that the same reasons justify both presumptions. [6]

Instead of burdening plaintiffs, Roberts decides that defendants should be able to rebut the reliance presumption with evidence of a lack of price impact before class certification. [6] Noting that the same evidence may already be proffered to show market efficiency and the publicity of misrepresentations, Roberts sees nothing gained and much lost by forbidding direct price impact evidence. The case was then vacated and remanded to give Halliburton the opportunity to prove the absence of price impact.

Concurrence and Concurrence in Judgment

Concurring Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor, note that moving the price impact inquiry to the class certification stage may broaden the scope of discovery.

Concurred in judgment only, Justice Thomas was joined by Justice Scalia and Justice Alito. Deriding “Basic’s muddled logic and armchair economics,” Thomas believes he may overrule such precedent when it is “badly reasoned”. [6]

The conservative justices then reject the efficient market hypothesis. They find that ‘“overwhelming empirical evidence” now suggests that even when markets do incorporate information, they often fail to do so accurately”. [12] Deriding “the Court’s rather superficial analysis”, Thomas concludes that investment decisions are “made with indifference to price and thus without regard for price “integrity””.

Because false statements do not effect market prices and investors are indifferent to the price they pay anyway, Thomas sees the Basic presumption as doing no good and much harm. Noting that on merits only six defendants have successfully rebutted individual plaintiffs’ reliance on price integrity, Thomas fears that the Basic presumption in practice is “largely irrebuttable”. [13] What's worse for Thomas, the huge damages resulting from securities fraud creates “substantial in terrorem settlement pressures” for large publicly traded companies to pay deceived shareholders. [14] Concluding that reliance in security fraud is “inherently individualized”, Thomas would overrule Basic and require every deceived shareholder to sue separately.

Subsequent developments

White-collar defense lawyers decried the ruling, [15] while it was viewed as good for witness economists. [16] [17] Academics blamed the ruling on a status quo bias [6] and complained that shareholders' rights were being entrenched. [18]

U.S. Appeals Courts would not find the fraud-on-the-market presumption rebutted again until April 12, 2016. [19]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Efficient-market hypothesis</span> Economic theory that asset prices fully reflect all available information

The efficient-market hypothesis (EMH) is a hypothesis in financial economics that states that asset prices reflect all available information. A direct implication is that it is impossible to "beat the market" consistently on a risk-adjusted basis since market prices should only react to new information.

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 that have affected 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.

Life Partners, Inc. is a life settlement provider headquartered in Waco, Texas. LPI's parent company, Life Partners Holdings, Inc., delisted from the NASDAQ, currently trades on the OTCPK under the ticker LPHI.Q. This follows the company seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, resulting from a total of $46.9 million in penalties levied against the company and two of its officers.

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.

<i>University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law</i>

The University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law is a scholarly journal focusing on issues of business law, corporate governance, securities regulation, capital markets regulation, the law of mergers and acquisitions, and employment law. The Journal is published four times annually by an organization of second and third year law students at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. The journal is one of six major scholarly journals at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and one of the top five most cited business law journals in the United States.

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.

James L. Dennis is an American lawyer, jurist, and former politician serving as a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with chambers in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corporation, 547 U.S. 451 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, relying on Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation, held that to establish standing under the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) provision that creates a civil cause of action for any person or entity injured in their business or property by reason of a RICO violation, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she was the direct victim of the defendant's RICO violation. The Court explained that this construction will save district courts from the difficulty of determining an indirect victim's damages caused by attenuated conduct.

Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extraterritorial effect of U.S. securities legislation. Morrison extinguished two species of securities class-action claims that had proliferated in preceding years: "foreign-cubed" claims, in which foreign plaintiffs sued foreign issuers for losses on transactions on foreign exchanges, and "foreign-squared" claims, brought by domestic plaintiffs against foreign issuers for losses on transactions on foreign exchanges.

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.

<i>Tinsley v Milligan</i> 1993 English trusts law case

Tinsley v Milligan[1993] UKHL 3 is an English trusts law case, concerning resulting trusts, the presumption of advancement and illegality.

Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the arbitration of securities fraud claims. It was originally brought by a group of Texas investors against their brokerage house. By a 5–4 margin the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and ruled that their claims under the Securities Act of 1933, which regulates trading in the primary market, must be arbitrated as stipulated in their customer agreements.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court found that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act. According to the Court's majority opinion, "it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices" to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality when all the alleged wrongful conduct takes place outside the United States.

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.

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.

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. ↑ "Dresser: The Halliburton Cast-Off That Could". Bloomberg.com. 4 October 2004.
  2. ↑ Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 597 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 2010) [2010 BL 36008]
  3. ↑ Sloan, Allan (January 11, 2005). "Halliburton Pays Dearly but Finally Escapes Cheney's Asbestos Mess". The Washington Post . p. E03. Retrieved 2022-07-03.
  4. ↑ Gerth, Jeff; Stevenson, Richard W. (August 2002). "Cheney's Role in Acquisition Under Scrutiny". The New York Times.
  5. ↑ "Dick Cheney's Halliburton: A corporate case study | Pratap Chatterjee". TheGuardian.com . 8 June 2011.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 The Supreme Court, 2013 Term — Leading Cases, 128 Harv. L. Rev. 291 (2014).
  7. ↑ Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 597 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 2010) [2010 BL 36008]
  8. ↑ Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 131 S. Ct. 2179, 563 U.S., 180 L. Ed. 2d 24 (2011).(Halliburton I)
  9. ↑ 718 F.3d 423 (2013)
  10. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-11-18. Retrieved 2017-06-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  11. ↑ Halliburton II, 134 S. Ct. 2398 at 2410 citing Shiller, We’ll Share the Honors, and Agree to Disagree, N.Y. Times, Oct. 27, 2013, p. BU6 (“Of course, prices reflect available information”).
  12. ↑ 134 S. Ct. at 2421 quoting Lev and de Villiers, Stock Price Crashes and 10b-5 Damages: A Legal, Economic and Policy Analysis, 47 Stan. L.Rev. 7, 20-21 (1994).
  13. ↑ 134 S. Ct. at 2424 citing Grundfest, Damages and Reliance under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 69 Bus. Lawyer 307, 360 (2014)
  14. ↑ 134 S. Ct. at 2424 fn.7 citing Nagareda, Class Certification in the Age of Aggregate Proof, 84 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 97. 99 (2009).
  15. ↑ "Supreme Court Leaves Fraud on Market Intact, Makes Life a Bit Harder for Securities Plaintiffs". Forbes .
  16. ↑ Reuters
  17. ↑ Gershman, Jacob (24 June 2014). "Taking Stock of the Supreme Court's Halliburton Ruling". Wall Street Journal.
  18. ↑ Eric C. Chaffee, An Oak is an Oak is an Oak is an Oak: The Disappointing Entrenchment in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund of the Implied Private Right of Action Under Section 10 (b) and Rule 10b-5. 9 NYU JL & Liberty 92 (2015).
  19. ↑ Karp, Brad S. (16 April 2016). "Halliburton II: Presumption of Reliance". Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation. Retrieved 19 April 2016.
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.