Law Center Search Results

On September 19, 2025, the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the full 3rd Circuit to reconsider its certification of a class of shareholders who manufactured a securities fraud lawsuit by relying on sensationalized re-publications of stale information about the defendant—drafted by plaintiffs’ firms themselves. In this case, a divided 3rd Circuit panel found that the plaintiffs successfully asserted the “inflation maintenance” theory, claiming that Johnson & Johnson’s failure to make certain disclosures about the alleged presence of asbestos in its talc products maintained the price of its stock at an artificially inflated level. According to the plaintiffs, subsequent articles and blog posts that “corrected” these misrepresentations--which came from the same plaintiffs’ firms bringing talc personal injury claims against J&J—caused the stock price to drop, even though the information in the articles was already publicly available. Based primarily on the timing of these events, the panel wrongly surmised that investors relied on the negative publicity generated by these “corrective” publications, causing the stock price to drop. The defendants have now petitioned the full 3rd Circuit for a rehearing on the panel’s decision. ,P. In support of the petition, the NAM argues that the panel improperly reached its own conclusions about the signals that the relevant articles and blog posts sent to the marketplace. Specifically, our brief notes that many other circuits have rejected the idea that reports recasting existing information constitute “corrective disclosures” in an efficient marketplace. An efficient market incorporates information into stock prices at the time of the information’s original publication. Further, we argue that the panel’s decision invites abuse by plaintiffs who will generate their own blog posts and articles, then identify them as “corrective” disclosures in a securities action.