Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds v. Amgen Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• characterizing Amgen’s rebuttal evidence as an attempt to present a “ ‘truth-on-the-market’ defense,” which the Court of Appeals explained “is a method of refuting an alleged misrepresentation’s materiality”
• characterizing Amgen’s rebuttal evidence as an attempt to present a “ ‘truth-on-the-market’ defense,” which the Court of Appeals explained “is a method of refuting an alleged misrepresentation’s materiality”
• “the district court was correct to require [plaintiff] to prove at the class certification stage that the market for [defendants’] stock was efficient”
• materiality need not be proved at the class-certification stage
• materiality need not be proved at the class-certification stage
• “Either way, the plaintiffs’ claims [must] stand or fall together.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).