Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Nov 5, 2012
|Feb 27, 2013||6-3||Ginsburg||OT 2012|
Holding: Proof of materiality is not a prerequisite to certification of a securities-fraud class action seeking money damages for alleged violations of Securities and Exchange Commission Rule #10(b) and Rule 1.
Plain English Summary:
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on February 27, 2013. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Kennedy joined and which Justice Scalia joined except for part I-B.
- Opinion analysis: Plaintiffs need not establish materiality to obtain certification of securities class actions (Steven Kaufhold)
- Argument recap: Court poised to decide whether materiality is required for class certification (Steven Kaufhold)
- Argument preview: Materiality required for class certification in fraud-on-the-market cases? (Steven Kaufhold)
- Scholarship highlight: Who should resolve issues relating to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? (Lumen Mulligan and Glen Staszewski)
- Petition of the day (Matthew Bush)