This week, we got two denials of class certification in 10b-5 securities cases involving meme stocks. The first concerned Bed Bath and Beyond, the second concerned a fintech called Rocket Companies, which is not one of your more famous meme stocks, but apparently met the definition for 2 days out of a 2-and-a-half month class period. One case presented a refreshingly accurate application of current doctrine. The other presented a clarifying illustration of the doctrinal mess created by the Supreme Court’s decision in Goldman Sachs v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and its subsequent interpretation by the Second Circuit.
Section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5, prohibit fraud in connection with securities transactions. Among other things, they prohibit corporate executives from publicly lying about a company, which typically causes the stock price to go up – only to crash again when the truth is revealed.
But when a plaintiff tries to sue in these cases, she confronts a fundamental problem: Fraud claims require proof of reliance. And most stock purchasers may have trouble proving they relied on any specific false statement. Maybe the investor didn’t hear the statement personally; maybe they relied on analyst advice – or an