<?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/2014/06/24/supreme-court-upholds-fraud-on-the-market-presumption-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>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 11:30:51 +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 Upholds Fraud-On-The-Market Presumption in Halliburton</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/06/24/supreme-court-upholds-fraud-on-the-market-presumption-in-halliburton/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=supreme-court-upholds-fraud-on-the-market-presumption-in-halliburton</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/06/24/supreme-court-upholds-fraud-on-the-market-presumption-in-halliburton/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:00:07 +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[Fraud-on-the-Market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Halliburton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=64286?d=20141215153523EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. Halliburton called into question the very foundation of a securities class action—the presumption of class-wide reliance. A unanimous Court answered the question today, and the presumption of reliance lives. The Court’s decision may, [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Yaron Nili, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Tuesday, June 24, 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;">The following post comes to us from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &amp; Rosati, P.C. and is based on a WSGR alert by <a href="http://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/DBIndex.aspx?SectionName=attorneys/BIOS/1906.htm" target="_blank">Douglas Clark</a> and <a href="http://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/DBIndex.aspx?SectionName=attorneys/bios/1543.htm" target="_blank">Ignacio Salceda</a>. The Supreme Court’s reconsideration of <em>Basic</em> and related legal questions are analyzed in detail 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>, that has been published in the May 2014 issue of <em>The Business Lawyer</em>, and discussed earlier on the Forum <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2014/04/09/rethinking-basic-towards-a-decision-in-halliburton/">here</a> and <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2014/01/06/rethinking-basic/">here</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in <em>Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc</em>. <em>Halliburton</em> called into question the very foundation of a securities class action—the presumption of class-wide reliance. A unanimous Court answered the question today, and the presumption of reliance lives. The Court’s decision may, however, have given defendants new opportunities to rebut the presumption in the earlier stages of a case.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/06/24/supreme-court-upholds-fraud-on-the-market-presumption-in-halliburton/#more-64286" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Supreme Court Upholds Fraud-On-The-Market Presumption in Halliburton">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/06/24/supreme-court-upholds-fraud-on-the-market-presumption-in-halliburton/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
