Rebutting the Presumption of Reliance in Securities Class Actions

'GAMCO' represents an 'extraordinary case.'

, New York Law Journal


Roger A. Cooper, Matthew M. Bunda and Anthony M. Shults of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton write: Because few securities cases go to trial, there have been few cases in which courts have considered whether defendants have, on an individual basis, rebutted the presumption of reliance established in 'Basic v. Levinson.' A recent decision from the Southern District of New York, however, "is just such an extraordinary case."

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202603355645

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.