IN RE: FIRST ENERGY CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, DIANE OWENS; CHANA FRAND; CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM; LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION; AMALGAMATED BANK; CITY OF IRVING SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFIT PLAN; WISCONSIN LABORERS’ PENSION FUND v. FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION; STEVEN E. STRAH; K. JON TAYLOR; JASON LISOWSKI; GEORGE M. SMART; PAUL T. ADDISON; MICHAEL J. ANDERSON; STEVEN J. DEMETRIOU; JULIA L. JOHNSON; DONALD T. MISHEFF; THOMAS N. MITCHELL; JAMES F. O’NEIL, III; CHRISTOPHER D. PAPPAS; SANDRA PIANALTO; LUIS A. REYES; JERRY SUE THORNTON; LESLIE M. TURNER (23-3940); JAMES F. PEARSON (23-3943); CHARLES E. JONES (23-3945); DONALD SCHNEIDER (23-3946); JOHN JUDGE (23-3947) - Articles

All Content

IN RE: FIRST ENERGY CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, DIANE OWENS; CHANA FRAND; CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM; LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION; AMALGAMATED BANK; CITY OF IRVING SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFIT PLAN; WISCONSIN LABORERS’ PENSION FUND v. FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION; STEVEN E. STRAH; K. JON TAYLOR; JASON LISOWSKI; GEORGE M. SMART; PAUL T. ADDISON; MICHAEL J. ANDERSON; STEVEN J. DEMETRIOU; JULIA L. JOHNSON; DONALD T. MISHEFF; THOMAS N. MITCHELL; JAMES F. O’NEIL, III; CHRISTOPHER D. PAPPAS; SANDRA PIANALTO; LUIS A. REYES; JERRY SUE THORNTON; LESLIE M. TURNER (23-3940); JAMES F. PEARSON (23-3943); CHARLES E. JONES (23-3945); DONALD SCHNEIDER (23-3946); JOHN JUDGE (23-3947)

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Aug 13, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, New York, New York, for all Appellants.

Attorneys 2: Jason A. Forge, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, San Diego, California, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sharon L. Nelles, David M.J. Rein, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, New York, New York, Morgan L. Ratner, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, Washington, D.C., for the FirstEnergy Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: David L. Axelrod, Timothy D. Katsiff, BALLARD SPAHR LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellant James F. Pearson.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Jason A. Forge, Joseph D. Daley, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, San Diego, California, Brian K. Murphy, MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.

Attorneys 6: ON BRIEF: Todd G. Cosenza, Charles D. Cording, Madeleine L. Tayer, Amanda M. Payne, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP, New York, New York, Deanne E. Maynard, MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, Washington, D.C., Michael D. Risley, Marjorie A. Farris, Chadwick A. McTighe, Bethan A. Breetz, STITES & HARBISON, PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): OGGS, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. In this interlocutory appeal from a district-court order granting class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), we are required to grapple with two major issues of securities-fraud law. First, when may a plaintiff class be accorded a presumption of reliance under the Supreme Court’s decision in Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972), in a case that alleges both omissions and misrepresentations to argue for liability under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78a–78rr; id. § 78j(b), and United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5? And second, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 35 (2013), when has a district court conducted a “rigorous analysis” of whether a plaintiff class has established that “damages are susceptible of measurement across the entire class”? For the reasons given in some detail below, we hold that the class certification was defective on both grounds, though perhaps not fatally so, and remand for further consideration under the standards set out in this opinion.

Attachments: