Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-222_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 18

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part
Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 

“doubt” over whether the Court of Appeals refused to con-
sider “all record evidence relevant to price impact.”  Ante, 
at 9; see also ante, at 9, n. 3.  But such statements must be 
viewed  in  the  context  of  Goldman’s  now-abandoned  argu-
ment that generic misrepresentations have no price impact 
as a matter of law.  Take, for example, the Second Circuit’s
statement  that  “[w]hether  alleged  misstatements  are  too
general to demonstrate price impact has nothing to do with
the issue of whether common questions predominate over 
individual ones.”  955 F. 3d, at 268.  Fairly read in light of 
Goldman’s appellate briefing, that sentence addresses only
Goldman’s  argument  that  general  statements  are  always 
per se irrelevant.  That is why the Second Circuit observed
several sentences later that “Goldman’s test is materiality 
by another name.”  Ibid.  At the same time, the court was 
careful to emphasize that defendants “may attempt to dis-
prove [price impact] at class certification” even though the 
inquiry “resembles materiality.”*  Id., at 267. 

In short, the Second Circuit did not address whether the 
generic nature of a misstatement may be used as evidence
to disprove price impact for a simple reason: Goldman iden-
tified no error in the District Court’s treatment of such evi-
dence.  Goldman did not press the argument in the Second
Circuit that it now urges here, and the Second Circuit did 
not reject the proposition that this Court now adopts.  Thus, 
the argument Goldman seeks to press on remand is unpre- 

—————— 

*Indeed, in a prior appeal in this case, an earlier Second Circuit panel 
vacated an order of the District Court in part because it had refused to
consider  price-impact  evidence  that  overlapped  with  materiality.   See 
879 F. 3d 474, 486 (2018) (holding that “[a]lthough price impact touches
on  materiality,  which  is  not  an  appropriate  consideration  at  the  class 
certification stage,” courts nonetheless must consider evidence regarding 
“[w]hether a misrepresentation was reflected in the market price at the
time of the transaction”).  It is hard to imagine that the Second Circuit 
here was unaware of (or intended to depart from) the prior panel’s hold-
ing.