Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-222_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

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

1 

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

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–222 
_________________ 

GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., ET AL., 
PETITIONERS v. ARKANSAS TEACHER 
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

[June 21, 2021] 

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, concurring in part and dissenting 

in part. 

I  agree  with  the  Court’s  answers  to  the  questions  pre-
sented, and I accordingly join Parts I, II–A–1, and II–B of 
the Court’s opinion.  Under Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U. S. 
224 (1988), securities plaintiffs may demonstrate reliance
by invoking the rebuttable presumption that investors rely 
on any misrepresentations reflected in a security’s market
price.  Id., at 241–247.  The Basic presumption is particu-
larly useful to class-action plaintiffs who, without the pre-
sumption, ordinarily could not demonstrate that questions 
common  to  the  class  predominate  over  individual  ones. 
Ante,  at  3–4.    Defendants,  for  their  part,  may  rebut  the 
Basic presumption by demonstrating that the alleged mis-
representations  did  not  in  fact  affect  the  security’s  price. 
Ante, at 3.  So-called “price impact” may be disproved with
a variety of evidence, alone or in combination.  As the Court 
holds today, one potentially relevant piece of evidence may 
be the “generic nature” of the misrepresentation.  Ante, at 
6–8. 

I do not, however, join the Court’s judgment to vacate and
remand because I believe the Second Circuit “properly con-
sidered the generic nature of Goldman’s alleged misrepre-