This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
Plaintiffs allege that Goldman Sachs maintained an artificially inflated stock price by repeatedly making false and misleading generic statements about its ability to manage conflicts.
What each side argues
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Petitioner)
According to Mr. Shanmugam, goldman contends that the Second Circuit failed to apply the guidance from *Amgen* and *Halliburton II* regarding consideration of all relevant evidence.
Goldman argues that the Second Circuit erred by requiring Goldman, rather than Plaintiffs, to bear the burden of persuasion on price impact at class certification.
According to Goldman, goldman relies on Federal Rule of Evidence 301, which places the burden of producing evidence to rebut a presumption on the party against whom the presumption is directed, but does not shift the burden of persuasion.
Goldman contends that general statements, like those at issue, cannot affect a company’s stock price because they are too general for a reasonable investor to rely upon.
Goldman argues that the Second Circuit erred twice: first, by holding that the generic nature of the alleged misrepresentations is irrelevant to the price‑impact inquiry; and second, by assigning Goldman the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of price impact.
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (Respondent)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
The case came on for oral argument before the Supreme Court at 10:00 a.m.
What the Court decided
The Court held that the generic nature of a misrepresentation can be important evidence of a lack of price impact.
The Court held that the defendant bears the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of price impact.
The Court affirmed that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the essential elements of its claim, including reliance.
The Court stated that once the plaintiff shows the required element, the presumption of reliance drops and the trier of fact decides reliance, with the plaintiff still bearing the burden of proof.
Justice Barrett filed a dissent.
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 34eff4335bee854a4604-r1-b6d95fd705c30e3e.pdforal argument transcript
- 823e60d7411da6cdfd11-r1-f63bb538fd6b0a9a.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.