securities law

Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.

Issues

Should the fraud-on-the-market theory of reliance be overruled or substantially modified to allow defendants to challenge a class certification by introducing evidence that the alleged fraud did not impact the price of its stock?

In 2002, the Erica P. John Fund, which supports the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, sued Halliburton, an oil-services company, for securities fraud.  The lawsuit accused Halliburton of lying about its asbestos liabilities, overstating its revenues, and building up hype about the company’s merger with Dresser Industries. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a class consisting of all shareholders of Halliburton. Contesting this class action, Halliburton argues that the lawsuit could not be brought by all shareholders unless individual shareholders actually relied on Halliburton’s alleged fraudulent acts to make their investment decisions. However, the Fund contends that reliance by the individual shareholders is presumed due to the fraud-on-the market theory established by Basic v. Levinson. The theory assumes that all public information provided by a company is incorporated into its stock price. Thus, Halliburton’s fraudulent information harmed all of its shareholders even if not every one of them personally read and relied on the information. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will determine whether the fraud-on-the-market theory remains valid. If the Court rejects the theory, then plaintiffs would have a harder time initiating lawsuits for securities fraud, and companies that allegedly commit the fraud would likely pay less in damages.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

  1. Whether this Court should overrule or substantially modify the holding of Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), to the extent that it recognizes a presumption of classwide reliance derived from the fraud-on-the-market theory.
  2. Whether, in a case where the plaintiff invokes the presumption of reliance to seek class certification, the defendant may rebut the presumption and prevent class certification by introducing evidence that the alleged misrepresentations did not distort the market price of its stock.

top

Facts

The Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (“The Fund”) alleges that between June 3, 1999, and December 7, 2001, the Halliburton Company (“Halliburton”) and its top executives misrepresented significant aspects of its operations. See Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co. (“Erica v. Halliburton”), 718 F.3d 423, 426 (5th Cir. 2013).

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

top

Submit for publication
0

Investor Protection Guide: Advance Fee Fraud

Advance fee frauds involve victims paying money in the hope of receiving something of greater value. This type of fraud takes on a myriad of forms, but they share some characteristics in common. Defrauders will often reach out to an investor and offer to pay an exorbitant price for securities owned by the investor, even if these securities are nearly worthless. The investor is sometimes referred to a fake website that the defrauder uses to bui

Investor Protection Guide: Affinity Fraud

Affinity fraud is not a singular specific type of fraud but is rather defined as any and all frauds targeted towards members of an identifiable group of individuals such as those with a common religion, ethnic heritage, background, or interests. The perpetrators of affinity fraud may pretend or may be members of the targeted group. They exploit the groups' inherent common trust to recruit victims for a fraud.

Investor Protection Guide: Auction Rate Securities

Investor Protection Guide: Equity-Indexed Annuities

An Equity-Indexed Annuity (“EIA”) is a financial product from insurance agencies that offers a minimum guaranteed return combined with a return linked to a market index. EIAs involve an “accumulation period,” when an investor makes a lump sum payment or a series of payments to the insurer, and a period following the accumulation period when the insurer makes a lump sum payment or a series of payments to the investor.   

Investor Protection Guide: Internet Fraud

The Internet can serve as an efficient tool for investors, but it is also an excellent tool for defrauders.  The Internet allows individuals or companies to reach tens of thousands of people by building a web site, posting a message on an online bulletin board, entering a discussion in a live chat room, or sending mass e-mails.  Because defrauders can easily make their information look real and credible, investors may have difficulty telling the difference between fact and fiction.  

Investor Protection Guide: Investment Newsletters

Some companies pay people to write online newsletters recommending their stocks, which are referred to as investment newsletters. Federal securities laws require the newsletters to disclose who paid for their product, the amount, and the type of payment.

Investor Protection Guide: Investment Seminars ("Free Lunch")

Financial seminars are a marketing tool often used by broker-dealers and other entities to attract prospective clients. These seminars may be invitation-only or they may be advertised in local papers or on the internet. Financial seminars are often held at hotels or restaurants and may offer enticements such as free meals, books, or trips for attendees.

Subscribe to securities law