Introduction to Securities Litigation in 2025

Securities litigation protects investors by making the financial world feel the impact of securities class actions with massive amounts at stake. U.S. corporate exposure to alleged violations of Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act hit $321.1 billion in 2019. These cases have created most important financial consequences for corporations and investors.

Historic settlements paint a clear picture of the scale of securities class actions. The largest settlements reached astronomical figures – Enron at $7.2 billion, WorldCom at $6.1 billion, and Tyco International at $3.2 billion. Public pension funds and labor union funds lead much of these fraud cases as plaintiffs. Their role is a vital part of securities class action lawsuits.

This comprehensive guide will get into how recent court decisions have altered the map of securities litigation through 2025. Legal standards keep evolving while precedent-setting cases shape the future. Global trends affect both corporations and investors in new ways. We wil give an explanation about corporate exposure estimates and risk management strategies to help navigate this complex legal landscape.

Key Legal Standards Governing Securities Class Actions

The legal system’s approach to securities class actions builds on several provisions that litigation and laws have shaped over many decades. These rules set boundaries for plaintiffs and defendants who get involved in securities litigation.

Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act

Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 are the foundations of securities fraud litigation. This rule prohibits anyone from using “any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud” or making material misstatements or omissions when buying or selling securities. Courts have recognized an implied private right of action under these provisions since the mid-1940s, though the statute doesn not explicitly state this.

Plaintiffs must prove six elements to establish liability under Section 10(b):

1. A material misstatement or omission
2. Scienter (intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud)
3. Connection between the misrepresentation and security purchase/sale
4. Reliance on the misstatement or omission
5. Economic loss
6. Causal cconnection between the misrepresentation and the loss

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners LP made it clear that “pure omissions” alone can’t support private claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, even when such omissions might violate SEC regulations. This decision has substantially limited potential securities fraud claims.

Class action plaintiffs face a particular challenge with the reliance requirement. Courts have developed the “fraud on the market” theory, which assumes efficient markets reflect all public, material information in security prices.

Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933: Tracing and Standing

Section 11 focuses on misrepresentations in registration statements, while Section 10(b) deals with fraudulent practices more broadly. Issuers, underwriters, directors, officers, and experts who helped prepare the registration statement face strict liability for material misstatements or omissions under this provision.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani altered the map of Section 11 litigation in 2023. The Court ruled that plaintiffs must “plead and prove that he purchased shares traceable to the allegedly defective registration statement,” including direct listings where registered and unregistered shares are offered simultaneously. This ruling strengthened the “tracing” requirement that circuit courts had applied to traditional offerings.

This decision has real-world implications. Plaintiffs who buy securities in the open market might find it impossible to establish standing without tracing their shares to those registered in the offering documents. Companies that list unregistered shares alongside registered offerings now have less exposure to Section 11 claims.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Class Certification in Securities Class Action Lawsuit

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 outlines class certification requirements for securities litigations, a crucial milestone in securities class actions. Cases need four elements to proceed as class actions under Rule 23(a):

• Numerosity: The class must be so numerous that joinder is impracticable
• Commonality: There must be questions of law or fact common to the class
• Typicality: The representative’s claims must be typical of the class
• Adequacy: The representative must fairly and adequately protect class interests

Securities class actions usually proceed under Rule 23(b)(3), which requires common questions to “predominate” over individual ones. The predominance requirement creates a unique challenge because individual reliance issues would typically prevent class certification.

Court decisions continue to shape the class certification process. The Ninth Circuit clarified in 2025 that a damages model doesn’t need full development at certification but must show how to calculate damages across the class. This ruling has made it easier to demonstrate that damages can be proven commonly. insecurities class actionss.

Courts must still perform a “rigorous analysis” of plaintiffs’ proposed methods. The Sixth Circuit demonstrated this in 2025 by overturning a class certification order that did not properly evaluate the plaintiffs’ damages methodology under the Comcast standard.

Impact of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA)

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) changed securities litigation forever. Congress created this law to deal with misuse in securities class actions, which completely changed how these cases move through the legal system.

Lead Plaintiff Provisions and Institutional Investor Role

The PSLRA revolutionized how courts select lead plaintiffs. The Act moved away from rewarding whoever filed first (the “race to the courthouse”). Instead, it created a rule that the investor with the most money at stake should be the lead plaintiff. Courts must now choose “the member or members of the purported plaintiff class who the court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members”.

The law wanted institutional investors—especially pension funds and other large organizations—to take charge of securities class actions. Congress believed these experienced investors would be tougher when dealing with class counsel. This would lead to lower fees and better recoveries for the class. The numbers show this approach worked well. Institutional investor involvement grew from almost none before PSLRA to about 27% of cases between 1995-2002, and reached 40% between 2010-2012.

Public pension funds have become powerful lead plaintiffs. Research shows cases with institutional investors, particularly public pensions, lead to:

• Higher settlement values
• Lower dismissal rates
• Better negotiated attorney fee structures

Institutional investors have led almost all major securities class action recoveries since PSLRA.

Portfolio Monitoring and Loss Recovery Services

After PSLRA became law, new portfolio monitoring services helped institutions step into their lead plaintiff roles. These services track global securities litigation, spot potential claims, and help with recovery.

Law firms now provide advanced monitoring platforms like “SecuritiesTracker™” that offer:

• Up-to-the-minute data analysis to spot potential securities fraud
• Detailed loss calculations using LIFO and FIFO methods
• Automatic claim form preparation and filing
• Regular updates about global securities litigation affecting client portfolios

These monitoring programs cost nothing for institutional clients. They have become vital tools for institutional investors to recover losses and serve as lead plaintiffs when needed.

Effect on Filing Rates and Settlement Sizes in Securities Class Actions

In stark comparison to what some expected, PSLRA hasn’t reduced securities class action filings. About 225 securities class actions still get filed each year. The stricter pleading standards have improved case quality instead of reducing numbers.

Experts still debate the law’s effect on settlement sizes. One study revealed that settlement amounts stayed similar to pre-PSLRA cases after adjusting for estimated losses, market value, class period length, and parallel SEC actions. Yet the same study found that the settlement amounts compared to estimated provable losses—a key measure of investor compensation—dropped substantially after PSLRA.

PSLRA’s discovery stay rule has made cases take longer. Plaintiffs can’t start formal discovery until courts resolve motions to dismiss. This rule, plus the lead plaintiff selection process, adds 6-12 months before discovery begins. Yet lawyers have become better at investigating cases before filing.

PSLRA’s lasting achievement might be getting institutional investors more involved in securities litigation, which created better oversight of these complex cases.

Major Court Decisions Reshaping Securities Class Actions in 2025

Supreme Court decisions have altered the map of securities class actions. These rulings created new obstacles for plaintiffs and provided clearer procedural standards. The decisions now guide case progression through courts and determine eligible plaintiffs under securities laws.

Slack v. Prani (2023) and Share Tracing Implications

The Supreme Court unanimously overturned a Ninth Circuit decision in Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani in June 2023. Justice Gorsuch’s opinion stated that “the better reading” of Section 11 requires plaintiffs to “plead and prove that he purchased shares traceable to the allegedly defective registration statement“. This ruling reinforced decades-old circuit court precedent that the Ninth Circuit had softened for direct listings.

The decision creates major roadblocks for investors who want to bring Section 11 claims:

• Plaintiffs need to show their purchased shares came from the specific registration statement claimed to have misstatements
• Share tracing becomes nearly impossible in direct listings or offerings that mix registered and unregistered shares
• Facts must be pleaded before discovery begins

The Slack ruling reaches beyond direct listings. A 2025 Northern District of California case used Slack to reject Section 11 claims in a traditional IPO where non-executive employees sold unregistered shares alongside the offering.

Halliburton and the Rebuttal of Price Impact Presumption in Securities Litigations

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System explained how defendants can challenge the fraud-on-the-market presumption from Basic v. Levinson. This presumption lets plaintiffs establish reliance without proving individual investors knew about alleged misrepresentations.

The Court made two crucial points:

A “generic misrepresentation” serves as “important evidence of a lack of price impact”. Generic statements about corporate policies affect stock prices less than specific statements, giving defendants a way to challenge class certification.

Defendants must disprove price impact by preponderance of evidence, but this burden “rarely” determines outcomes except when evidence is perfectly balanced. Courts must examine all probative evidence when assessing price impact.

This decision builds on Halliburton II, which gave defendants the right to challenge the presumption during class certification by proving no price impact. These rulings help defendants contest class certification before discovery costs mount.

Cyan Decision and State vs Federal Jurisdiction Conflicts

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund (2018) that state courts can hear Securities Act claims. This decision, based on statutory interpretation, reversed a 25-year trend of moving securities litigation toward federal courts.

Cyan has far-reaching effects. State courts lack many PSLRA procedural protections, so plaintiffs file parallel actions in both state and federal courts, which creates complex litigation. Notable differences include:

• State courts set lower pleading standards than federal courts
• Motion-to-dismiss procedures don’t exist in many state courts
• Related state and federal cases can’t be consolidated, leading to duplicate litigation

Cyan raised questions about whether PSLRA’s automatic discovery stay applies in state courts. The Supreme Court addressed this in Pivotal Software (2021), examining if plaintiffs can conduct state court discovery during pending dismissal motions. This decision will shape defendants’ litigation costs and settlement leverage.

   Visit Our Extensive Investor Hub: Learning for Informed Investors