Amgen Inc., et al. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds

Case Updates

The Court held that proof of materiality is not a prerequisite to certification of a securities-fraud class action seeking money damages for alleged violations of §10(b) and Rule 10b–5.

NCLC urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that a proposed securities class action may not be certified unless plaintiffs prove they relied on the alleged misrepresentations, and that the misrepresentations were material. In its amicus brief, NCLC argued that in stock fraud lawsuits, plaintiffs must prove at the class certification stage that the Rule 23 class certification requirements were “in fact” satisfied, a requirement the Supreme Court established beyound doubt in last term’s Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes. NCLC’s amicus brief warned that the lower court’s approach made it easier for securities-fraud plaintiffs to get lawsuits certified, and as a result, would increase the pressure on defendants to settle even unmeritorious claims, rather than risk blockbuster judgments.

NCLC filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a case addressing whether plaintiffs are required to prove reliance and materiality at the class certification stage.