Gutting the Loss Causation Requirement in Securities Class Actions: 5th Circuit Holds that Insufficient Partial Disclosures May Together Sufficiently Plead Loss Causation

Oct 27, 2014

Reading Time : 4 min

Background

Amedysis is a home health care services company that assists chronically ill patients.  Plaintiffs allege that during the class period, Amedisys defrauded investors by concealing a Medicare fraud scheme.  Plaintiffs allege five partial disclosures:

  • August 12, 2008, report from a research firm raising questions about Amedysis’s Medicare billing practices
  • September 3, 2009, announcement of the resignation of the company’s CEO and CIO
  • April 26, 2010, Wall Street Journal article by a professor analyzing publically available Medicare reimbursement data and finding that Amedisys might be “taking advantage of the Medicare reimbursement system”
  • May 12, 2010, June 30, 2010, and September 28, 2010, announcements that the Senate Finance Committee, the SEC, and the DOJ were investigating Amedisys
  • July 12, 2010, announcement of disappointing operating results.

The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, finding that plaintiffs had failed to plead loss causation. The 5th Circuit, in an opinion written by Eastern District of Texas Judge Gilstrap sitting by designation, reversed, finding that the “whole is greater than the sum of its parts” and holding that together these partial disclosures satisfied the pleading requirements for loss causation.

The Court outlined the loss causation requirement: “the plaintiff must allege that when the ‘relevant truth’ about the fraud began to leak out or otherwise make its way into the marketplace, it caused the price of the stock to depreciate and, thereby, proximately caused the plaintiff’s economic harm.”  The Court indicates that the “test for ‘relevant truth’ simply means that the truth disclosed must make the existence of the actionable fraud more probable than it would be without that alleged fact, taken as true.”

The Court then analyzed each of the five partial disclosures and found each one lacking by itself, but ultimately held that combined they sufficiently pled loss causation.

Research Reports – The Court found that the August 2008 research report, which specifically noted that it had not concluded that Amedisys was committing Medicare fraud, did not make the existence of the actionable fraud more probable than not.  But then, the Court held that “it must be considered within the totality of all such partial disclosures.”  This is a significant finding because it takes the corrective disclosures back two years from the end of the class period, when the stock price was trading at $66.07.  The next disclosure was a year later, when the stock price was trading at $43.46.

Corporate Resignations – More than a year after the August 2008 research report was released, Amedisys’s COO and CIO left to “pursue other interests” and the stock price declined.  There is nothing in the press release that links the resignations to the alleged Medicare fraud.  The 5th Circuit therefore found that there was nothing in the resignation that revealed the truth behind earlier alleged misstatements and that it “does not in and of itself constitute a corrective disclosure.”  Nonetheless, the Court found that it “may constitute a portion of the totality that we must consider.”  This holding is somewhat baffling, particularly where the loss causation standard requires them to eliminate other factors unrelated to the fraud.  This seems to be precisely the type of other factor that should disprove loss causation, but the Court instead opted to include this as part of the alleged corrective disclosures.

Publically Available Information – The April 2010 Wall Street Journal article had an analysis from an expert who used publically available Medicare information.  Defendants argued that since the Medicare information was previously publically available, it should be considered confirmatory and could not be considered a corrective disclosure.  The Court observed that “although a disclosure of mere confirmatory information will not cause a change in the stock price because the current price already reflects the information available, we find it plausible that this information was not merely confirmatory.” The Court noted that “the raw data itself had little to no probative value in its native state.”  This conclusion has implications for defendants on a going-forward basis, as it suggests that even previously publically available information may not be sufficient in certain cases to dispute loss causation.

Government Investigations – Securities class action defendants are frequently beset by government investigations.  Most courts have held that the disclosure of such investigations are not considered corrective, since the investigation itself is not truth of an alleged fraud.  The 5th Circuit in Amedisys held that though they do not, standing alone, amount to corrective disclosures, they may be considered “together with the totality of the other alleged partial disclosures.”

In sum, the 5th Circuit appears to have endorsed “leakage theory,” holding that “the truth can be gradually perceived in the marketplace through a series of partial disclosures.”  The opinion does not address whether the partial disclosures themselves were statistically significant and whether that bears on the analysis.  Instead, the Court combined the entire 63.6 percent decline from the first alleged curative disclosure to the end of the class period, to evaluate loss causation.  Although this opinion could have far-reaching impact on securities class actions in the 5th Circuit, defense lawyers can take comfort that the Court made very clear that it was evaluating this under the plausibility standard of Rule 8 and that the evidentiary burden here (as opposed to the merits stage) is “much less stringent.”  Regardless, this opinion appears to signal a brave new world for securities class actions.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.