Court Opinion

ID: 9480850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:00:33.259384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:57.416948
License: Public Domain

RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I have absolutely no quarrel with the court's conclusion that a “fraud on the market” theory is not applicable to this case. However, I think the parties have asked, and the district judge has certified, a different question for resolution. I believe the question before us is whether this circuit will recognize a “fraud created the market” theory. I would join with the courts that have recognized such a theory1 and remand this case for further proceedings so that the necessary facts can be *201developed to determine whether a “fraud created the market” theory would be applicable here.

. See, e.g., Ross v. Bank South, N.A., 885 F.2d 723 (11th Cir.1989) (en banc); T.J. Raney & Sons, Inc. v. Fort Cobb, Oklahoma Irrigation Fuel Authority, 717 F.2d 1330 (10th Cir.1983); cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026, 104 S.Ct. 1285, 79 L.Ed.2d 687 (1984); Shores v. Sklar, 647 F.2d 462 (5th Cir.1981) (en banc); cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1102, 103 S.Ct. 722, 74 L.Ed.2d 949 (1983); Stinson v. Van Valley Dev. Corp., 719 F.Supp. 362 (E.D.Pa.1989), aff’d, 897 F.2d 524 (3d Cir.1990) (table).