In re Petrobras Securities Litigation

Case Updates

The Second Circuit panel affirmed in part and vacated in part an order certifying two investor classes. The panel held that the plaintiffs in this case met their burden under Basic to invoke the presumption of reliance, but declined to reach the question of whether plaintiffs may satisfy the Basic presumption without any direct evidence of price impact.

The U.S. Chamber filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants-appellants in a securities fraud class action, urging the Second Circuit to reverse the district court for certifying the class without performing the rigorous analysis required by Rule 23.

First, the Chamber argued that the district court erred in finding that common class-wide questions predominate over individual ones by improperly granting plaintiffs the Basic presumption of reliance despite a lack of any direct evidence that the securities at issue were traded in an efficient market. In addition, the Chamber argued that the court erred in determining that the class was readily ascertainable because defining the class requires individualized, fact-specific inquiries as to whether the transactions at issue are “domestic” and, thus, it is not defined by objective criteria that are administratively feasible. If left in place, the Chamber’s brief explained, the court’s decision would invite securities plaintiffs to pursue marginal claims on behalf of questionable classes in an effort to extract settlements by wielding the threat of overbroad class-wide damages.

Michael H. Park and J. Michael Connolly of Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC served as counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.