In re LTV Sec. Litig.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas · 1980 · Corporations

88 F.R.D. 134 (N.D. Tex. 1980)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsSecurities litigationClass actionsRule 10b-5Class certificationRule 23predominancetypicality

Facts

LTV announced on July 17, 1978 that trading in its securities would be suspended for 10 days because possible adjustments to J&L Steel inventories might affect previously reported financial results. On October 13, 1978, LTV announced a restatement of earnings for 1974 through 1977, which plaintiffs attributed to improper inventory accounting and related misrepresentations and omissions. The consolidated complaint alleged a scheme to inflate income and assets through J&L inventory practices and asserted claims under § 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and §§ 11 and 12 on behalf of purchasers of various LTV securities. Plaintiffs sought one broad class covering purchasers of eight categories of securities from April 28, 1975 through October 16, 1978, while defendants challenged certification, class composition, and the proposed period.

Issue

Whether the court should certify a securities fraud class under Rule 23 for purchasers of multiple LTV securities despite asserted individualized issues of reliance, conflicts among class members, and manageability concerns. More specifically, the court had to decide whether a fraud-on-the-market theory could supply a classwide presumption of reliance for open-market transactions, whether 'in-and-out' traders could be included, and what the proper class period should be.

Rule

In a Rule 10b-5 class action involving securities traded in active and substantial markets, reliance may be presumed under a fraud-on-the-market theory by showing a material misrepresentation that affected market price, so common issues of scienter, market fraud, and the width of the damage ribbon can predominate over individual issues. A securities fraud class may include 'in-and-out' traders if conflicts over damage theories can be addressed through subclassing, but purchasers after a public announcement that materially disclosed the adverse information are not in the same class as earlier purchasers because they face unique reliance and injury issues. For this case, the class period begins when allegedly infected quarterly earnings were first released and ends when the market was informed on July 17, 1978 of the materially adverse inventory adjustments.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

North River Metals, a large publicly traded manufacturer based in Pittsburgh, allegedly inflated earnings for two years by overstating inventory in quarterly reports. Priya Desai and thousands of other investors bought North River common stock on the New York exchange before any corrective disclosure and seek Rule 23(b)(3) certification on a Rule 10b-5 claim.

What is the strongest basis for finding that common issues predominate?

Explanation. For open-market transactions in securities traded in active and substantial markets, the court recognized a fraud-on-the-market theory. If plaintiffs can show material misrepresentations affecting market price, reliance may be presumed on a classwide basis, making common issues such as scienter, market fraud, and price distortion predominate over individual reliance issues.