<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/03/15/supreme-court-hears-arguments-in-halliburton/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 20:45:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Halliburton</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/03/15/supreme-court-hears-arguments-in-halliburton/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=supreme-court-hears-arguments-in-halliburton</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/03/15/supreme-court-hears-arguments-in-halliburton/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:14:55 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation & Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Basic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Erica John Fund v. Halliburton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Exchange Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fraud-on-the-Market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Halliburton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule 10b-5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=60939?d=20141202132039EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On March 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317, which presents whether to overrule or significantly limit plaintiffs’ ability to rely on the legal presumption that each would-be class member in a securities fraud class action relied on the statements challenged as [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Robert Giuffra, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, on Saturday, March 15, 2014 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;"><a href="http://www.sullcrom.com/lawyers/RobertJ-GiuffraJr/" target="_blank">Robert Giuffra</a> is a partner in Sullivan &amp; Cromwell’s Litigation Group. The following post is based on a Sullivan &amp; Cromwell publication by <a href="http://www.sullcrom.com/lawyers/JeffreyB-Wall/" target="_blank">Jeffrey B. Wall</a>. The Supreme Court’s reconsideration of <em>Basic</em> is also discussed in a Harvard Law School Discussion Paper by Professors Lucian Bebchuk and Allen Ferrell, <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=2371304" target="_blank">Rethinking <em>Basic</em></a>, discussed on the Forum <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2014/01/06/rethinking-basic/">here</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>On March 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in <em>Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.</em>, No. 13-317, which presents whether to overrule or significantly limit plaintiffs’ ability to rely on the legal presumption that each would-be class member in a securities fraud class action relied on the statements challenged as fraudulent in the lawsuit. Without this so-called fraud-on-the-market presumption of classwide reliance, putative class action plaintiffs would face substantial barriers in maintaining securities fraud class actions. The Court’s decision in <em>Halliburton</em>, which is expected by June 2014, could lead to a significant change in the conduct of securities class actions. Even if the Court ultimately retains some formulation of the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, the Court could increase defendants’ ability to contest what in practice has evolved into a virtually irrebuttable presumption.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/03/15/supreme-court-hears-arguments-in-halliburton/#more-60939" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Halliburton">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/03/15/supreme-court-hears-arguments-in-halliburton/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
