In Oregon v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., 292 P.3d 525 (Or. 2012) (No. 050808454), the state of Oregon brought state-law securities claims against defendant Marsh & McLennan (“Marsh”), alleging that Marsh made false and misleading statements that caused the state to lose approximately $10 million on its investment in Marsh stock.  The state based its claims on a “fraud-on-the-market” theory, alleging that it purchased the stock at a time when the price was artificially inflated due to Marsh’s misrepresentations, and the stock price dropped when those misrepresentations later came to light.  This doctrine has long been accepted in the context of federal securities laws, but previously had not been adopted by any state for purposes of state-law securities claims.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Marsh, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the state could not establish the requisite element of reliance under Oregon’s securities laws through a fraud-on-the-market presumption.  The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that a purchaser of stock in an open and efficient market may establish reliance under Oregon’s securities laws by means of the rebuttable presumption available under the fraud-on-the-market doctrine.  The court found unpersuasive the argument that no other state had adopted the doctrine, concluding that the text and legislative history of the Oregon statute demonstrated that it was modeled after, and consistent with, federal securities law and, therefore, it should be interpreted as permitting fraud-on-the-market claims recognized under federal securities law.