Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo
544 U.S. 336 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a private securities fraud action, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's misrepresentation proximately caused an actual economic loss; merely alleging that the plaintiff purchased a security at an artificially inflated price is insufficient to plead the required element of loss causation.
Facts:
- Between April 1997 and February 1998, Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. made false statements about its expected drug sales profits and the likelihood of future FDA approval for a new asthmatic spray device.
- Respondents purchased Dura stock on the public market during this period.
- On February 24, 1998, Dura announced that its earnings would be lower than anticipated, mainly due to poor drug sales.
- The day after the earnings announcement, Dura's stock price fell nearly 50%, from approximately $39 to $21 per share.
- Approximately eight months later, in November 1998, Dura announced that the FDA would not approve its new asthmatic spray device.
- Following the FDA announcement, Dura's stock price experienced a temporary dip but recovered almost completely within one week.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents (plaintiffs) filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit against Dura Pharmaceuticals in the U.S. District Court.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that it failed to adequately allege loss causation with respect to the spray device claim.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit, as the intermediate appellate court, reversed the District Court's decision, holding that alleging a purchase at an artificially inflated price was sufficient to plead loss causation.
- Dura Pharmaceuticals, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does alleging and proving that a security's price was artificially inflated on the date of purchase, due to a misrepresentation, suffice to plead and prove 'loss causation' under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
No. A plaintiff in a securities fraud case cannot satisfy the loss causation requirement simply by alleging they paid an artificially inflated price for a security. An inflated purchase price is not itself a relevant economic loss; at the time of purchase, the inflated price is offset by the ownership of a share of equivalent value. The law requires a plaintiff to show a causal connection between the misrepresentation and a subsequent economic loss, which typically occurs when the truth is revealed to the market and the share price falls as a result. The Court's reasoning is grounded in the common law of deceit, which requires proof of actual pecuniary damages, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), which explicitly places the burden on plaintiffs to prove that the misrepresentation 'caused the loss.' Allowing claims based solely on price inflation would improperly transform securities law into an investor insurance scheme against market losses, rather than a tool to remedy fraud.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarified and strengthened the 'loss causation' element in securities fraud litigation, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring such claims. By rejecting the Ninth Circuit's lenient 'inflated purchase price' theory, the Court established a nationwide standard requiring plaintiffs to plead and prove that a misrepresentation was directly linked to a subsequent economic loss, typically by showing a price drop after a corrective disclosure. This holding raised the pleading bar for securities class actions, making them more susceptible to motions to dismiss at an early stage. Consequently, the ruling forces plaintiffs' attorneys to conduct more thorough pre-filing investigations to connect specific misstatements to concrete stock price declines, thereby curbing speculative or abusive litigation.
Unlock the full brief for Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo