Direct Evidence of Price Impact Not Always Necessary, 2nd Circuit Says

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
November 6, 2017

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (2,291 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
6029 Commercial Banks, NEC
522110 Commercial Banking
securities litigation
expert testimony, event study, class action, securities fraud, stock value
Waggoner v. Barclays PLC
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22115
US
Federal Court
2nd Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Dr. Zachary Nye (plaintiffs); Dr. Christopher M. James (defendant)
Droney

Summary

In a securities fraud action, appeals court upholds class certification; trial court did not err when it found direct evidence of price impact by way of event study was not necessary to show market efficiency where there was strong indirect evidence.

See Also

Waggoner v. Barclays PLC

Full Text of Court Cases
November 6, 2017

In a securities fraud action, appeals court upholds class certification; trial court did not err when it found direct evidence of price impact by way of event study was not necessary to show market efficiency where there was strong indirect evidence.

This article also appears in:
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition