No. 25-977

Johnson & Johnson, et al. v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Association, et al.

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2026-02-18
Status: Pending
Type: Paid
Amici (4)Response Waived Experienced Counsel
Tags: Basic-Inc-v-Levinson class-certification corrective-disclosure efficient-market-hypothesis inflation-maintenance-theory securities-fraud
Latest Conference: 2026-04-17
Question Presented (from Petition)

Securities-fraud class actions overwhelmingly rely on the "inflation-maintenance" theory, which posits that misrepresentations maintain an inflated stock price until "corrective disclosures" reveal their falsity and cause the price to drop. Plaintiffs in these cases pursue class certification by invoking the efficient-market hypothesis adopted in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988). They argue that reliance can be presumed classwide because stock prices in efficient markets incorporate all publicly available information, including misstatements. Based on this presumption, lower courts grant 90% of class-certification motions. This Court's decision in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, 594 U.S. 113 (2021), installed guardrails on these cases. It required courts to evaluate the match between the "contents of the misrepresentation and the corrective disclosure," to ensure the disclosure "actually corrected" the misrepresentation. Id. at 123. Where a "mismatch" exists, class certification is "inappropriate." Id. at 119, 123. Here, the Third Circuit concluded that Goldman's match requirement is satisfied where the misrepresentation and corrective disclosure merely touch the same subject matter, regardless of whether the disclosure actually reveals the misstatement's falsity. It also concluded that disclosures may have price impact even when they only republish already-public information. The questions presented are:

1. Under Goldman, must the contents of corrective disclosures actually reveal the falsity of misrepresentations, as the Second Circuit requires; or is it sufficient if the misrepresentations and disclosures merely relate to the same general subject, as the Third and Ninth Circuits allow?

2. Under this Court's Basic precedents, may a securities-fraud class action be certified where the plaintiff invokes the efficient-market hypothesis to establish classwide reliance, but the corrective disclosures repeat information that was already publicly available?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether, under Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, corrective disclosures in securities-fraud class actions must actually reveal the falsity of misrepresentations or whether it is sufficient that the misrepresentations and disclosures merely relate to the same general subject matter, and whether class certification may be granted where corrective disclosures repeat information already publicly available

Docket Entries

2026-03-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2026.
2026-03-20
Waiver of right of respondent San Diego County Employees Retirement Association; Frank Hall, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated to respond filed.
2026-03-20
Amicus brief of Washington Legal Foundation submitted.
2026-03-20
Amicus brief of Manhattan Institute submitted.
2026-03-20
Amicus brief of Former SEC Officials and Law Professors submitted.
2026-03-20
Amicus brief of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America; National Association of Manufacturers; Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association; Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America submitted.
2026-03-20
Brief amicus curiae of Manhattan Institute filed.
2026-03-20
Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.
2026-03-20
Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed. (Corrected)
2026-03-20
Brief amici curiae of Former Securities and Exchange Commission Officials, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2026-03-20
Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2026-02-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 20, 2026)
2026-01-05
Application (25A744) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until February 4, 2026.
2025-12-19
Application (25A744) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 5, 2026 to February 4, 2026, submitted to Justice Sotomayor. (Justice Alito is recused.)

Attorneys

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America; National Association of Manufacturers; Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association; Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
Anton MetlitskyO'Melveny & Myers LLP, Amicus
Former SEC Officials and Law Professors
Robert J. Giuffra Jr.Sullivan & Cromwell, Amicus
Johnson & Johnson, et al.
Kwaku Affawua AkowuahSidley Austin LLP, Petitioner
Manhattan Institute
Cody Lawrence ReavesTorridon Law PLLC, Amicus
San Diego County Employees Retirement Association; Frank Hall, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
Joseph D. DaleyRobbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Respondent
Washington Legal Foundation
Lyle RobertsAllen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP, Amicus