Investors brought a putative class action for securities fraud. Specifically, the investors alleged that Amgen concealed safety issues associated with their drugs, causing losses when such problems came to light. Amgen argued that plaintiffs were required to prove materialityof the omissions at the certification stage, in order to ensure that common questionswill predominate throughout the litigation process.  The Court rejected this argument.  “Because materiality is judged according to an objective standard, the materiality of Amgen’s alleged misrepresentations andomissions is a question common to all members of the class.”  Second, “a failure of proof on the commonquestion of materiality would not result in individual questions predominating.” (It would, instead, end the case.)  Materiality is based on an objective “reasonable investor” standard, which must be established in order to prevail on the merits. Amgen Inc. v. ConnecticutRet. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013).