Connection lost
Server error
Law School Case Briefs
Start by searching for a case name or citation above.
Discover a Random Brief
Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds
Supreme Court of the United States (2013) | 185 L. Ed. 2d 308; 133 S. Ct. 1184; 568 U.S. 455; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1862; 84 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1151; 81 U.S.L.W. 4146; 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 67
TL;DR: In a securities fraud class action, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs need not prove the materiality of alleged misstatements at the class certification stage. A failure of proof on materiality would end the case for all, not cause individual questions to predominate.
Legal Significance: The case clarifies that Rule 23(b)(3) requires only that common *questions* predominate, not that plaintiffs prove they will win on those questions. It separates the merits inquiry of materiality from the procedural requirements for class certification in securities fraud litigation.