Master The Supreme Court held that securities-fraud plaintiffs need not prove materiality at class certification to invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption under Rule 23(b)(3), and defendants may not defeat certification with immateriality evidence at that stage. with this comprehensive case brief.
Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds is a cornerstone Supreme Court decision at the intersection of civil procedure and securities regulation. It clarifies what plaintiffs must show at the class certification stage in Rule 10b-5 securities-fraud actions that rely on the fraud-on-the-market presumption recognized in Basic Inc. v. Levinson. Specifically, the Court addressed whether plaintiffs must establish materiality before a class can be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) and whether defendants can use immateriality evidence to defeat certification.
This case matters because class certification is often the decisive battleground in securities litigation. Certification can shift settlement dynamics and determine whether claims will be litigated collectively or individually. Amgen lowers the front-end burden on plaintiffs by treating materiality as a merits question common to all class members, thereby streamlining certification while reserving materiality for summary judgment or trial. It also sets the stage for later refinements, including Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Halliburton II), which allowed defendants to rebut price impact at certification, but not by arguing immateriality.
568 U.S. 455 (2013)
Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, a public pension fund, brought a putative class action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 against Amgen Inc. The fund alleged that, during the class period, Amgen made a series of public misstatements and omissions that downplayed safety risks and regulatory concerns related to key anemia drugs, and otherwise misled the market about the company's exposure to regulatory action and the integrity of its revenues. The securities traded on a national, well-developed market, and the alleged misstatements were disseminated publicly through investor communications and regulatory filings. The plaintiffs invoked the fraud-on-the-market theory from Basic Inc. v. Levinson to establish classwide reliance, arguing that Amgen's public misstatements were incorporated into the stock price and that investors relied on the integrity of that price. Amgen opposed class certification, asserting that plaintiffs must prove materiality at the certification stage to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement, and alternatively sought to defeat certification by introducing evidence that the alleged misstatements were immaterial. The district court certified the class without requiring proof of materiality, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether materiality must be proven at class certification and whether defendants may rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption with immateriality evidence at that stage.
In a Rule 10b-5 securities-fraud class action proceeding under Rule 23(b)(3), must plaintiffs prove the materiality of alleged misstatements at the class certification stage to establish predominance, and may defendants defeat class certification by presenting evidence that the alleged misstatements were immaterial?
Under Rule 23(b)(3), a class may be maintained if common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. In securities-fraud actions under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, plaintiffs may invoke Basic Inc. v. Levinson's fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance by showing that the alleged misstatements were public, that the security traded in an efficient market, and that the plaintiffs traded the security between the time of the misstatements and the corrective disclosures. Materiality is an element of a Rule 10b-5 claim assessed under an objective standard and is common to the class; it need not be proven at class certification to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3), and defendants may not defeat certification at that stage by introducing immateriality evidence because materiality either will be resolved commonly for the class or will defeat the claim for all class members together.
No. Securities-fraud plaintiffs need not prove materiality at the class certification stage to obtain the fraud-on-the-market presumption and satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement, and defendants may not defeat certification by offering immateriality evidence at that stage. The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's judgment.
The Court, per Justice Ginsburg, emphasized that Rule 23(b)(3) asks whether common issues predominate, not whether plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits. Materiality is an objective, merits element of a Rule 10b-5 claim that will be resolved the same way for every class member. If the alleged misstatements are immaterial, the entire class loses on the merits in one stroke; if they are material, the issue is satisfied for all class members. Either way, materiality does not generate individualized questions that would undermine predominance at certification. Requiring proof of materiality at certification would improperly front-load a merits determination that is common to the class, contrary to the design of Rule 23. Applying Basic's fraud-on-the-market theory, the Court distinguished predicates for invoking the presumption (public statements, market efficiency, and trading during the relevant period) from merits elements like materiality. The former bear on whether reliance can be presumed classwide, while the latter goes to whether the misstatements are actionable. The Court rejected Amgen's position that materiality must be proven to invoke Basic, noting that lack of materiality defeats the claim for everyone and therefore does not create individual reliance issues. The Court also referenced Congress's preservation of Basic's framework in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), suggesting congressional acceptance of classwide reliance without pre-certification proof of materiality. The Court further explained that allowing defendants to inject immateriality evidence at certification would collapse the merits inquiry into the Rule 23 analysis and risk inconsistent, premature determinations. Materiality is best reserved for summary judgment or trial where a complete record can be developed. Dissenting, Justice Thomas (joined by Justices Scalia and Kennedy) argued that materiality is integral to the Basic presumption and should be proven at certification to ensure that reliance is genuinely common, warning about the settlement pressure of large classes. Justice Alito concurred in the judgment but signaled openness to revisiting Basic. The majority, however, held firm that materiality is a common merits issue that does not belong at certification.
Amgen is a pivotal class certification case. It lowers the certification threshold for Rule 10b-5 class actions by confirming that plaintiffs need not prove materiality to show predominance, thereby preventing defendants from using immateriality evidence to block certification. The decision preserves the efficiency of class proceedings by ensuring that truly common merits issues are decided later, all at once, for everyone. After Amgen, plaintiffs still must establish the Basic predicates of public statements, market efficiency, and trading during the relevant period, but not materiality, at certification. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions refined, but did not displace, Amgen. In Halliburton II (2014), the Court allowed defendants at class certification to rebut the Basic presumption by showing no price impact, which is distinct from materiality. Thus, the current landscape is: plaintiffs need not prove materiality at certification; defendants cannot defeat certification with immateriality evidence; but defendants may use price-impact evidence to rebut the presumption at certification.
Amgen held that securities-fraud plaintiffs need not prove that alleged misstatements were material at class certification to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. Materiality is a common, merits issue that will be resolved uniformly for all class members, so it does not affect whether common issues predominate.
No. Amgen prohibits defendants from using immateriality evidence at the certification stage to argue that individual issues of reliance predominate. If the statements are immaterial, the claim fails for the entire class on the merits; if they are material, the element is satisfied for everyone. Either way, materiality does not create individualized reliance questions relevant to certification.
Amgen reaffirms Basic. Plaintiffs may presume classwide reliance if they show that the misstatements were public, the market for the security was efficient, and they traded during the period between the misstatements and corrective disclosures. Amgen clarifies that one need not prove the merits element of materiality to invoke this presumption at class certification.
Halliburton II, decided after Amgen, permits defendants at class certification to rebut the Basic presumption with evidence showing no price impact from the alleged misstatements. That ruling does not conflict with Amgen's holding on materiality: plaintiffs still need not prove materiality at certification, and defendants still cannot defeat certification with immateriality evidence.
Plaintiffs must establish the Rule 23 prerequisites, including predominance, and satisfy the predicates to invoke Basic's presumption: that the alleged misstatements were public, that the security traded in an efficient market, and that class members traded during the relevant period. Materiality, scienter, loss causation, and damages remain merits issues to be proved later.
By taking materiality off the certification table, Amgen narrows the certification dispute to market efficiency, publicity of statements, class period trading, and other Rule 23 factors. Plaintiffs can focus on these predicates to secure certification, while defendants often pivot to challenging market efficiency or, post-Halliburton II, to showing no price impact.
Amgen draws a clear procedural line in securities-fraud class actions: materiality is a common merits issue that does not belong in the class certification calculus. By holding that plaintiffs need not prove materiality at certification—and that defendants cannot defeat certification with immateriality evidence—the Court ensures that Rule 23(b)(3) remains focused on whether questions can be answered classwide, not on whether plaintiffs will win.
For students and practitioners, Amgen is essential reading alongside Basic and Halliburton II. It frames the modern class certification playbook in securities cases: plaintiffs establish the Basic predicates and Rule 23 requirements to certify, while materiality is reserved for later stages where it will be resolved uniformly for the entire class.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →