Proving Markets Inefficient: The Variability of Federal Court Decisions on Market Efficiency in Cammer v. Bloom and Its Progeny

Posted: 9 Oct 2012

Date Written: June 8, 2001

Abstract

This fall, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans. Among the issues the Court may address is the role of market efficiency in the class certification phase of securities fraud litigation.

This now decade-old paper was one of the first systematic explorations of federal courts' attempts to assess market efficiency so as to determine whether or not to apply Basic v. Levison's "Fraud-on-the-Market" presumption of reliance. Reviewing the cases available at the time, the paper explores the challenges confronting courts when economic theory is seemingly adopted as precent. It concludes by recommending that the Supreme Court revisit the issue and recognize that, at the heart of Basic, there was a policy choice to eliminate the traditional common-law requirement of reliance in the securities fraud context.

Keywords: Basic v. Levinson, fraud on the market, securities fraud, Amgen

Suggested Citation

Rapp, Geoffrey Christopher, Proving Markets Inefficient: The Variability of Federal Court Decisions on Market Efficiency in Cammer v. Bloom and Its Progeny (June 8, 2001). University of Miami Business Law Review, Vol. 10, 2002, University of Toledo Legal Studies Research Paper, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2158854

Geoffrey Christopher Rapp (Contact Author)

University of Toledo College of Law ( email )

2801 W. Bancroft Street
Toledo, OH 43606
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
617
PlumX Metrics