In a class action against banks and other financial institutions alleged to have conspired with Enron to manipulate profits, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal rejected a presumption of reliance, on the basis that the banks were not jointly and severally liable for the statements and omissions of Enron under the PSLRA and Central Bank. In addition to effectively resolving 10(b) liability on the merits as a precursor to the reversal of class certification, the Court curiously notes that, while “the plaintiffs are likely correct that the market for Enron securities was efficient and that inherent in that conclusion is the fact that the market price reflected all publicly available information,” the “factual probability that the market relied on the banks’ behavior and/or omissions does not mean that plaintiffs are entitled to the legalĀ presumption of reliance.” As noted by Judge Dennis, concurring: “The majority is, of course, correct in some sense – if the banks engaged in no conduct within the reach of Section 10(b), then the plaintiffs cannot prevail against them in a class action. But the plaintiffs’ inability to proceed under such circumstances would have nothing to do with the need to prove reliance on an individual basis. When this court decides, on a common, classwide basis, as the majority does today, that the banks’ alleged conduct is non-actionable as a matter of law, it is dubious to then claim that we are actually finding only that individual issues of reliance predominate over common issues. Under the majority’s reasoning, individual questions of reliance do not predominate; rather, reliance is simply irrelevant, because no plaintiff can, on an individual or a class basis, establish that the banks engaged in any actionable conduct.” Judge Dennis suggests that the case should be remanded for further consideration of classes or sub-classes more appropriately tailored to the alleged conduct of the particular defendant at issue. The majority sppears to have foreclosed any such consideration. See Regents of the University of California v. Credit Suisse First Boston, 482 F.3d 372 (5th Cir. 2007).