In Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013) (No. 11-1085), the Supreme Court held that proof that misstatements were material was not a prerequisite for certification in a securities class action. Rule 23(b)(3) requires “a showing that questions common to the class predominate, not that those questions will be answered, on the merits, in favor of the class.” Materiality is judged by an objective standard and thus, is a question common to the class. Likewise, the class’s “inability to prove materiality would not result in individual questions predominating;” it would simply mean the class would lose on the merits. Requiring proof of materiality at the certification stage would require the class to establish it will win, but the merits may be considered only to the extent relevant to determining whether the prerequisites for class certification are satisfied. The Court rejected defendant’s policy argument that precertification proof of materiality was necessary to avoid the risk that certification would impose pressure on a defendant to settle. The Court noted that Congress had addressed settlement pressures associated with securities class actions through the enactment of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995, but rejected calls at that time to undo the fraud on the market presumption. The Supreme Court concluded it had no basis to “encumber” class action litigation “by adopting an atextual requirement.”