IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, et al. v. Best Buy, et al.

Case Updates

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, concluding that by presenting no contrary evidence of price impact, the plaintiffs “failed to satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), and the district court abused its discretion by certifying the class.”

In its brief, the Chamber asked the Eighth Circuit to reverse a district court decision arguing that the prices of Best Buy stocks were not affected at the time of the Plaintiff’s transaction. The brief asserts that the district court’s judgment was based on the assumption that the alleged misrepresentations could have affected the stock price, instead of evidence that it did. The brief points out that in Halliburton II, the Supreme Court held that, the defendants have the right to rebuttal against the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance at class certification. The district court’s holding misinterprets Halliburton II based upon the fact that the Defendants in this case clearly showed evidence that there was no impact on the market price of Best Buy stock at the time of the Plaintiff’s transaction.

The brief points out that the district court’s decision undermines already established principles by relieving plaintiffs of their burden to show price impact once a defendant has made a showing of absence of price impact. Under this reasoning, a class action lawsuit can survive on a mere showing of market efficiency even if the only evidence disproves price impact. This reasoning is completely opposed to the Supreme Court’s decision in Halliburton II and undermines the safe-harbor Congress granted under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) for forward – looking guidance.

Lewis J. Liman of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamiton LLP represented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as co-counsel to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.