Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-222_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

6  GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. v. ARKANSAS TEACHER 

RETIREMENT SYSTEM 
Opinion of the Court 

certification order.  879 F. 3d 474 (2018).  The Second Cir-
cuit held that Goldman, as the defendant, bears the burden 
of persuasion to prove a lack of price impact by a prepon-
derance of the evidence.  But it concluded that the District 
Court erred by holding Goldman to a higher burden of proof 
and by refusing to consider some of Goldman’s price impact
evidence. 

On remand, the District Court certified the class again,
finding that Goldman’s expert testimony failed to establish
by a preponderance of the evidence that its alleged misrep-
resentations had no price impact.  The Second Circuit again 
authorized a Rule 23(f ) appeal and this time affirmed in a 
divided decision.  955 F. 3d 254 (2020).  As relevant here, 
the Court of Appeals held that the District Court’s price im-
pact determination was not an abuse of discretion.  In dis-
sent, Judge Sullivan concluded that “the generic quality of 
Goldman’s alleged misstatements, coupled with” Goldman’s
expert  testimony,  compelled  the  conclusion  that  Goldman
proved a lack of price impact.  Id., at 278–279. 
We granted certiorari.  592 U. S. ___ (2020). 

II 
Goldman argues that the Second Circuit erred in two re-
spects:  first,  by  concluding  that  the  generic  nature  of  al-
leged  misrepresentations  is  irrelevant  to  the  price  impact
question; and second, by placing the burden of persuasion 
on  Goldman  to  prove  a  lack  of  price  impact.    We  address 
these arguments in turn. 

A 
1 
On  the  first  question—whether  the  generic  nature  of  a
misrepresentation is relevant to price impact—the parties’ 
dispute has largely evaporated.  Plaintiffs now concede that 
the  generic  nature  of  an  alleged  misrepresentation  often
will be important evidence of price impact because, as a rule