Burch et al v. SLM Corporation et al

MEMORANDUM & ORDER granting 131 Motion to Certify Class. For the foregoing reasons, lead plaintiff SLM Ventures' motion to certify a class consisting of all persons or entities who bought or otherwise acquired SLM Corporation common shares between January 18, 2007, and January 23, 2008, and who possessed any of those shares over one or more of the dates of December 19, 2007, January 3, 2008, and January 23, 2008, is granted.

33 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,637 times 505 Legal Analyses
Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,955 times 69 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval
Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo
544 U.S. 336 (2005) Cited 3,550 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano
563 U.S. 2011 (2011) Cited 1,338 times 57 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs had adequately pled a Rule 10b–5 claim—where defendant had disputed the sufficiency of the allegations with respect to the elements of scienter and materiality—by alleging that defendant had forestalled a stock price drop by making affirmative statements confirming the market's impression that defendant's leading product was safe, despite defendant's awareness of evidence suggesting a significant risk that the nasal spray led to loss of sense of smell; when the risk was finally (belatedly) disclosed, the stock price plummeted
Basic Inc. v. Levinson
485 U.S. 224 (1988) Cited 3,347 times 307 Legal Analyses
Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance
Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co.
563 U.S. 804 (2011) Cited 749 times 54 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff need not prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification
Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States
406 U.S. 128 (1972) Cited 1,627 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding bank jointly and severally liable with its employees, without explanation
ECA & Local 134 Ibew Joint Pension Trust v. Jp Morgan Chase Co.
553 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2009) Cited 909 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements that the defendant "'set the standard' for 'integrity' and that it would 'continue to reposition and strengthen [its] franchises with a focus on financial discipline'" were nonactionable puffery given their generality
Securities & Exchange Commission v. First Jersey Securities, Inc.
101 F.3d 1450 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 1,233 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that owner-officer who collaborated in unlawful conduct of firm may be held jointly and severally liable with firm for disgorgement of unlawful gains received
Teamsters v. Bombardier
546 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2008) Cited 447 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the “preponderance of the evidence standard applies to evidence proffered to establish Rule 23's requirements”
Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 Cited 7,465 times 48 Legal Analyses
Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party
Section 78c - Definitions and application
15 U.S.C. § 78c Cited 1,666 times 87 Legal Analyses
Exempting certain "note" with maturities of less than nine months from the definition of "security" under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Burch et al v. SLM Corporation et al

33 Cited authorities

Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”

Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval

Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”

Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance

Holding that a plaintiff need not prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification

Holding bank jointly and severally liable with its employees, without explanation

Holding that statements that the defendant "'set the standard' for 'integrity' and that it would 'continue to reposition and strengthen [its] franchises with a focus on financial discipline'" were nonactionable puffery given their generality

Holding that owner-officer who collaborated in unlawful conduct of firm may be held jointly and severally liable with firm for disgorgement of unlawful gains received

Holding that the “preponderance of the evidence standard applies to evidence proffered to establish Rule 23's requirements”

Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

Exempting certain "note" with maturities of less than nine months from the definition of "security" under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934