Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-222_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

12  GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. v. ARKANSAS TEACHER 

RETIREMENT SYSTEM 
Opinion of the Court 

the allocation of the burden is unlikely to make much dif-
ference  on  the  ground.    In  most  securities-fraud  class  ac-
tions, as in this one, the plaintiffs and defendants submit 
competing  expert  evidence  on  price  impact.  The  district 
court’s task is simply to assess all the evidence of price im-
pact—direct  and  indirect—and  determine  whether  it  is 
more  likely  than  not  that  the  alleged  misrepresentations
had a price impact.  The defendant’s burden of persuasion 
will have bite only when the court finds the evidence in eq-
uipoise—a situation that should rarely arise.  Cf. Medina v. 
California, 505 U. S. 437, 449 (1992) (preponderance of the
evidence  burden  matters  “only  in  a  narrow  class  of  cases
where the evidence is in equipoise”). 

* 

* 

* 
The Second Circuit correctly placed the burden of proving
a lack of price impact on Goldman.  But because it is unclear 
whether the Second Circuit properly considered the generic
nature of Goldman’s alleged misrepresentations in review-
ing the District Court’s price impact determination, we va-
cate  the  judgment  of  the  Second  Circuit  and  remand  the 
case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.