Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-222_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

FindWhat.com, 658 F. 3d 1282, 1315 (CA11 2011).1 

Plaintiffs allege here that between 2006 and 2010, Gold-
man maintained an inflated stock price by making repeated 
misrepresentations  about  its  conflict-of-interest  policies
and business practices.  The alleged misrepresentations are
generic statements from Goldman’s SEC filings and annual
reports, including the following: 

  “We have extensive procedures and controls that are
designed  to  identify  and  address  conflicts  of  inter-
est.”  App. 216 (emphasis and boldface deleted). 

  “Our clients’ interests always come first.”  Id., at 162 

(same). 

  “Integrity and honesty are at the heart of our busi-

ness.”  Id., at 163 (same). 

According to Plaintiffs, these statements were false or mis-
leading—and caused Goldman’s stock to trade at artificially 
inflated  levels—because  Goldman  had  in  fact  engaged  in
several allegedly conflicted transactions without disclosing
the conflicts.  Plaintiffs further allege that once the market
learned the truth about Goldman’s conflicts from a Govern-
ment enforcement action and subsequent news reports, the
inflation  in  Goldman’s  stock  price  dissipated,  causing  the
price to drop and shareholders to suffer losses.

After Goldman unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the case, 
Plaintiffs moved to certify the class, invoking the Basic pre-
sumption.  In response, Goldman sought to rebut the Basic 
presumption by proving a lack of price impact.  Both parties
submitted extensive expert testimony on the issue.

The District Court certified the class, but the Second Cir-
cuit authorized a Rule 23(f ) appeal and vacated the class-

—————— 

1 Although  some  Courts  of  Appeals  have  approved  the  inflation-
maintenance theory, this Court has expressed no view on its validity or 
its contours.  We need not and do not do so in this case.