Class Certification: Back to 'Basic'

, New York Law Journal

   | 0 Comments

In their Corporate and Securities Litigation column, Sarah S. Gold and Richard L. Spinogatti of Proskauer Rose write: The Supreme Court is being asked to overrule 'Basic v. Levinson' because its theoretical economic framework has been repudiated through scholarly and empirical attack, there has been a high level of inconsistency in the courts regarding market efficiency, and the 'Basic' presumption is inconsistent with recent Supreme Court's holdings. If 'Basic' is preserved and the presumption retained, the requisite showing to obtain and maintain its benefit at class certification needs clarification and the relevance of price impact evidence to that inquiry requires consistency.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.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 lexis.com® 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Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.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 customercare@alm.com

What's being said

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

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202622674336

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.