Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds

Summary

The Supreme Court held that proof of materiality is not a prerequisite to certifying a securities-fraud class action seeking money damages under §10(b) and Rule 10b–5: because materiality is judged by an objective standard it is a question common to the class, and a failure of classwide proof on it would end the case rather than leave individual reliance questions to predominate under Rule 23(b)(3). The Court further held that the District Court did not err in refusing to consider Amgen's 'truth-on-the-market' rebuttal evidence at certification, since that evidence merely attacks materiality and belongs at summary judgment or trial. The Ninth Circuit's judgment affirming certification was accordingly affirmed. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court; Justice Alito concurred, flagging that reconsideration of the fraud-on-the-market presumption may be warranted; Justice Scalia dissented, reading Basic to require materiality at certification; and Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Kennedy and in part by Justice Scalia, dissented, arguing every fraud-on-the-market predicate, including materiality, must be established at certification.