green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
55.3 score
G Cite
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases, 2005–2024 · 2 courts ·
…both transaction causation, that the violations in question caused the plaintiff to engage in the transaction, and loss causation, that the misrepresentation or omissions caused the harm.
at p. 1063
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2000–2015 · 3 courts ·
…empirical facts showing a cause and effect relationship between unexpected corporate events or financial releases and an immediate response in the stock price.
at p. 1065
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
ScripsAmerica, Inc. v. Ironridge Global LLC
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
presumption of reliance should not be applied to cases that allege- both misstatements and omissions. unless the case can be characterized as one that primarily alleges omissions
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Adamo v. Nextdoor Holdings, Inc.
Statements After Final Purchase 16 “As a matter of law, ‘conduct actionable under Rule 10b-5 must occur before investors 17 purchase the securities.’” Wanca v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., 2018 WL 3145649 , at *7 (N.D. 18 Cal. June 27, 2018) (quoting Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 1999)) (dismissing 19 Section 10(b) claims “because [plaintiff] cannot support claims for securities fraud with false 20 statements allegedly made after his stock purchase.”). 21 Here, Plaintiff’s claims arise from statements including one made in August 2022. 22 However, Plaintiff la…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Si v. Bed Bath & Beyond Corporation
The indicators of efficiency most widely used by courts are the so-called “Cammer factors.” See Cammer v. Bloom, 711 F. Supp. 1264 , 1286–87 (D.N.J. 1989) (articulating five factors); Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying Cammer factors); In re Xcelera.com Sec.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeffrey Guinn v. Cdr Investments, LLC
This court, by contrast, when applying federal law has adopted “a presumption of reliance … available to plaintiffs alleging … omissions of material fact,” Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 1999), meaning that “[r]eliance may be inferred from [the defendant’s] failure to disclose the requisite material information,” In re Tallant, 218 B.R. 58, 69 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Poetic License Capital, Inc. v. Ebrahim
Loss Causation The causation requirement includes “both transaction causation, that the violations in question caused the plaintiff to engage in the transaction, and loss causation, that the misrepresentation or omissions caused the harm.” Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brian Piccinetti v. Clayton Myrick McClanahan & Coulter PLLC
City of Indianapolis, 323 F.3d 513 , 515–16 (7th Cir. 2003); Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 1999), and it is 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Purple Mountain Trust v. Wells Fargo & Company
The Basic presumption is essential to a 12 securities class action because individual questions of reliance would predominate otherwise. 13 Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 1999).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Prge&j Ret. Sys. Admin. v. Volkswagen
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Affiliated Ute, we have recognized the presumption of reliance is “generally available to plaintiffs alleging violations of section 10(b) based on omissions of material fact.” See Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Kramas v. Sec. 10 IN RE VOLKSWAGEN LITIGATION Gas & Oil Inc., 672 F.2d 766 , 769 (9th Cir. 1982)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nehemiah Kong v. Shamsi Shirazi-Fard
Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nehemiah Kong v. Shamsi Shirazi-Fard
Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Felix v. Symantec Corporation
Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir.1999). 15 Defendants do not dispute that Symantec common stock traded in an efficient market 16 during the class period.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Camp v. Qualcomm Incorporated
No. 57- 20 1 at 20.) “A cause of action under section 10(b) applies only to misrepresentations or 21 omissions made ‘in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.’” Binder v. 22 Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78k(b)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ensource Investments LLC v. Willis
Causation includes both 23 “transaction causation,” that the violations in question caused the plaintiff to engage in the 24 transaction, and “loss causation,” that “the misrepresentation or omissions caused the 25 harm.” Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940, 949 (9th Cir. 26 2005) (quoting Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 1999)). 27 “Typically, ‘to satisfy the loss causation requirement, the plaintiff must show that 28 the revelation of that misrepresentation or omission was a substantial factor in causing a 1 decline in the securit…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Anderson v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.
Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 6 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics Incorporated
To do otherwise would permit the Affiliated Ute presumption to swallow the reliance requirement almost completely. 6 Moreover, it would fail to serve the Affiliated Ute presumption’s purpose 7 since this is not a case where reliance would be difficult to prove because it was based on a negative. 8 Id. at 941 (quoting Joseph v. Wiles, 223 F.3d 1155, 1163 (10th Cir. 2000)). “[T]he 9 Affiliated Ute presumption should not be applied to cases that allege both misstatements 10 and omissions unless the case can be characterized as one that primarily alleges omissions.” 11 Binder v. Gillespie, 1…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Volkswagen \Clean Diesel\" Mktg.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Second, Plaintiff relatedly contends that Bondholders II 's reasoning would effectively cabin the availability of the Affiliated Ute presumption to cases that exclusively involve a failure to disclose, instead of cases that involve " primarily a nondisclosure," as Binder instructs. *976 184 F.3d at 1064 (emphasis added).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Solarcity Corporation Securities Litigation
Therefore, under Binder,. these statements do not constitute conduct that occurred “before investors purchase[d] the securities.” Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bias v. Wells Fargo & Co.
Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1063-64 (9th Cir.1999) (noting that a presumption of reliance is appropriate in a case involving primarily omissions because of the “difficulty of proving a speculative negative — that the plaintiff relied on what was not said”); Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U.S. 128, 153-54 , 92 S.Ct. 1456 , 31 L.Ed.2d 741 (1972).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Petrie v. Electronic Game Card, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Reg. § 12.10 (2015); Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1065 (9th Cir.1999) (“The question is whether such a market is efficient — meaning simply whether the stock prices reflect public information.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kelly v. Electronic Arts, Inc.
(2×)
As a matter of law, “conduct actionable under Rule 10b-5 must occur before investors purchase the securities.” Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir.1999) (citation omitted); see DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352 , 126 S.Ct. 1854 , 164 L.Ed.2d 589 (2006) (“... [a] plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press.”) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Zinoviy Bershadskiy
Binder v. 4 Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir. 1999). 5 The only question that then remains is the amount of damages 6 proximately caused by Appellant’s non-disclosure.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Allstate Life Insurance
Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, 552 U.S. 148, 171 , 128 S.Ct. 761 , 169 L.Ed.2d 627 (2008) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1065 (9th Cir.1999); Lopes v. Vieira, 543 F.Supp.2d 1149, 1193 (E.D.Cal.2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Negrete v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America
The court noted that a presumption of reliance is traditionally only available in eases involving securities fraud, and even then, only in “cases based on omissions as opposed to affirmative misrepresentations.” Id. at 666 (further noting that the presumption is also not available in cases involving a mix of misrepresentations and omissions (citing Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir.1999))).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation
Litig., 430 F.3d 503, 508 (1st Cir.2005) (affirming application of the Cammer factors); Unger v. Amedisys Inc., 401 F.3d 316, 323 (5th Cir.2005) (affirming application of Cammer and Krogman factors); Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 368 (4th Cir.2004) (citing the Cammer factors favorably); Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1064-65 (9th Cir.1999) (citing the Cammer factors with approval); Freeman, 915 F.2d at 198 -99 (citing the Cammer factors). 17 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hodges v. Akeena Solar, Inc.
The fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance is “based on the hypothesis that, in an open and developed securities market, the price of a company’s stock is determined by the available material information regarding the company and its business____ Misleading statements will therefore defraud purchasers of stock even if the purchasers do not directly rely on the misstatements.” Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting Basic, 485 U.S. at 241-42 , 108 S.Ct. 978 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Belizan v. Radin Glass & Co.
Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Credit Suisse First Boston (USA), Inc., 482 F.3d 372, 384 (5th Cir.2007) (“primarily based on omissions”); Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir.1999) (“cases that primarily allege omissions”); Cox v. Collins, 7 F.3d 394, 396 (4th Cir.1993) (“only nondisclosure”); Cavalier Carpets, Inc. v. Caylor, 746 F.2d 749, 756 (11th Cir.1984) (“primarily omission cases”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Interbank Funding Corp. SEC. Litigation
Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Credit Suisse First Boston (USA), Inc., 482 F.3d 372, 384 (5th Cir.2007) ("primarily based on omissions"); Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir.1999) ("cases that primarily allege omissions"); Cox v. Collins, 7 F.3d 394, 396 (4th Cir.1993) ("only nondisclosure"); Cavalier Carpets, Inc. v. Caylor, 746 F.2d 749, 756 (11th Cir.1984) ("primarily omission cases").
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Bare Escentuals, Inc. Securities Litigation
Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1063-64 (9th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Miller v. Thane International, Inc.
Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir.1999) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240 .10b-5). 2 In order to ease the burden of showing reliance for each member in a plaintiff class, which is necessary to obtain class certification, courts have presumed reliance when there is “fraud on the market,” i.e., the whole market is deceived by a misrepresentation such that “Misleading statements ... defraud purchasers of stock even if the purchasers do not directly rely on the misstatements.” Ba *1103 sic, 485 U.S. at 241-42 , 108 S.Ct. 978 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Countrywide Financial Corp. Securities Litigation
(2×)
See Semerenko v. Cendant Corp., 223 F.3d 165, 178-79 (3d Cir.2000) (decomposing Basic into essentially these three presumptions); accord Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1489 (9th Cir.1996). 75 For the market to impound price information (and for a plaintiff to rely reasonably on a market price), the market must be “efficient.” Basic, 485 U.S. at 248 , 108 S.Ct. 978 ; Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Interbank Funding Corp. Securities Litigation
Ltd., 573 F.3d 931, 940 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir.1999)); see also Joseph, 223 F.3d at 1162 (“Affiliated Ute’s holding is limited to omissions as opposed to affirmative misrepresentations.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Interbank Funding Corp Securities Litigation
Ltd., 573 F.3d 931, 940 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir. 1999)); see also Joseph, 223 F.3d at 1162 ("Affiliated Ute's holding is limited to omissions as opposed to affirmative misrepresentations.").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Juniper Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation
The fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance is “based on the hypothesis that, in an open and developed securities market, the price of a company’s stock is determined by the available material information regarding the company and its business____Misleading statements will therefore defraud purchasers of stock even if the purchasers do not directly rely on the misstatements.” Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting Basic, 485 U.S. at 241-42 , 108 S.Ct. 978 ).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Desai v. Deutsche Bank Securities Ltd.
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
Therefore, the presumption is usually available "only when a plaintiff alleges that a defendant made material representations or omissions concerning a security that is actively traded in an `efficient market.' " Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir.1999).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Desai v. Deutsche Bank Securities Limited
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Therefore, the presumption is usually available “only when a plaintiff alleges that a defendant made material representations or omissions concerning a security that is actively traded in an ‘efficient market.’ ” Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. Securities Litigation
Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1065-66 (9th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Infineon Technologies AG Securities Litigation
Misleading statements will therefore defraud purchasers of stock even if the purchasers do not directly rely on the misstatements.” Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting Basic, 485 U.S. at 241-42 , 108 S.Ct. 978 (1988)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Huberman v. Tag-It Pacific Inc.
Misleading statements will therefore defraud purchasers of stock even if the purchasers do not directly rely on the misstatements .... ” Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 241-42 , 108 S.Ct. 978 , 99 L.Ed.2d 194 (1988) (internal quotations omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Huberman v. Tag-It Pacific Inc.
Misleading statements will therefore defraud purchasers of stock even if the purchasers do not directly rely on the misstatements .... ” Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 241-42 , 108 S.Ct. 978 , 99 L.Ed.2d 194 (1988) (internal quotations omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re LDK Solar Securities Litigation
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The fraud-on-the-market theory is based on the efficient market hypothesis (in some form) and therefore is contingent upon the alleged misrepresentation or omission being disseminated into an efficient market: The fraud-on-the-market presumption is “based on the hypothesis that, in an open and developed securities market, the price of a company’s stock is determined by the available material information regarding the company and its business ____ Misleading statements will therefore defraud purchasers of stock even if the purchasers do not directly rely on the misstatements” .....Thus, t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bruhl v. Price Waterhousecoopers International
See, e.g., Cavalier Carpets, Inc. v. Caylor, 746 F.2d 749, 756 (11th Cir.1984); Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 482 F.3d at 383-84 ; Johnston v. HBO Film Management, Inc., 265 F.3d 178 , 192-94 (3d Cir.2001); Joseph v. Wiles, 223 F.3d 1155, 1162-63 (10th Cir. 2000); Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1063-64 (9th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Silverman v. KPMG LLP (In Re Allou Distributors, Inc.)
(II), 388 F.Supp.2d 307, 314 (S.D.N.Y.2005); Wright v. Ernst & Young LLP, 152 F.3d 169, 175 (2d Cir.1998); Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1067 (9th Cir.1999); and Danis v. USN Comm’n, Inc., 121 F.Supp.2d 1183, 1193 (N.D.Ill.2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., Deriv. Lit.
Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1065-66 (9th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Elias v. Ungar's Food Products, Inc.
As the Third Circuit stated, “[i]f proof of the essential elements of the cause of action requires individual treatment, then class certification is unsuitable.” Newton v. Merrill Lynch, et., al, 259 F.3d 154 , 172 (3d Cir.2001) (citing Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1063-66 (9th Cir.1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation
Litig., 430 F.3d 503, 508 (1st Cir.2005) (adopting the Cammer approach); Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1065 (9th Cir.1999) (same); Hayes v. Gross, 982 F.2d 104, 107 (3d Cir.1992) (same); Freeman, 915 F.2d at 199 (same); In re SCOR Holding (Switzerland) AG Litig., 537 F.Supp.2d 556, 574 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Flaxel v. Johnson
Economic loss (a/k/a “transaction causation”) is established by proof as a matter of law “ ‘that the violations in question caused the plaintiff to engage in the transaction!.]’ ” Livid Holdings, Ltd., 416 F.3d at 949 (quoting Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir.1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.
(2×)
See, e.g., Lentell v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 396 F.3d 161, 172 (C.A.2 2005); Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1065-1066 (C.A.9 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Atlas v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co.
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 To state a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, a plaintiff must allege “(1) a misrepresentation or omission (2) of material fact (3) made with scienter (4) on which the plaintiff justifiably relied (5) that proximately cause[d] the alleged loss.” Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Micron Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation
Thus, the presumption of reliance is available only when “a plaintiff alleges that a defendant made material representations or omissions concerning a security that is actively traded in an efficient market____” Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp.
(Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo (2005) 544 U.S. 336, 342-343 [ 161 L.Ed.2d 577 , 125 S.Ct. 1627 ] [discussing proximate causation in relation to the “fraud-on-the-market” theory of reliance peculiar to Rule 10b-5 claims]; Binder v. Gillespie (9th Cir. 1999) 184 F.3d 1059, 1065-1066 [plaintiff asserting Rule 10b-5 claim must show “ ‘loss causation,’ ” that is, “the fraud caused, or at least had something to do with, the decline in the value of the investment after the securities transaction took place”].) They therefore do not disturb our conclusions.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Danny Lee KYLLO, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Danny Lee KYLLO, Defendant-Appellant
96-30333.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 29, 1999.
184 F.3d 1059
99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6017
1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 38619
1999 WL 548267
Brunetti, Noonan, Hawkins.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
The Opinion filed April 7,1998 and appearing at 140 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir.1998), is withdrawn. The panel, being unanimously of the view that the issues are well framed by the briefs filed to date, will proceed to. issue an opinion without further argument.