In re Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. Securities Litigation (571 F. Supp. 2d 1315, 2007)

ORDER

RICHARD W. STORY, District Judge.

This case is presently before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [151]. After considering the entire record, the Court enters the following Order.

Background

This is a consolidated securities fraud class action brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j and 77t, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. Plaintiffs seek to maintain a class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Defendant Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. (“SA”), or who sold put options of SA between January 18, 2001 and August 16, 2001 (the “Class”). Plaintiffs propose as class representatives Alexander Peterson, Hugh G. Peterson, III, Jack Graeber, Roger Hale, and Vigilant Investors LP. Defendants in this action are Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., and SA’s CEO and CFO during the class period, Wallace G. Haislip and James F. McDonald, respectively.

The specific facts of this case as alleged by Plaintiffs are fully set forth in the Court’s Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (See Order of Dee. 23, 2002[49] at 1-10.) In brief, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in pervasive “channel stuffing” and utilized improper accounting practices between January and June of 2001 in an effort to hide decreasing demand for SA products and decreasing sales to SA customers. Plaintiffs further allege that during this period, SA intentionally misrepresented to investors that demand for SA products was increasing, when in fact it was in decline. Through this combination of channel-stuffing, improper accounting, and misleading statements, SA, according to Plaintiffs, gave the false appearance that it was gaining market share and performing better than its competitors during a period of decline. The end effect was an artificial inflation of the price of SA stock.

Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants’ fraudulent acts in the first half of 2001 were, at least in part, revealed in July of 2001. On July 19, 2001, in a statement issued after the close of the New York Stock Exchange, Defendants for the first time disclosed that demand for SA’s products was, despite their earlier statements, decreasing. Defendants also disclosed that SA had not met its revenue forecasts and earnings expectations for fiscal year 2001, and informed investors that SA would reduce its prior earnings forecasts for the first quarter of fiscal year 2002. The next day, the price of SA stock fell over 35%, from its July 19, 2001 close of $35.08 per share to $22.80 per share, resulting in a market capitalization loss of approximately $2 billion. More than 27 million shares of SA stock changed hands, representing over ten times the stock’s average daily trading volume.

Finally, Plaintiffs allege that the full extent of Defendants’ fraud was revealed several weeks later, on August 16, 2001, when Defendants filed, after the close of trading, their fiscal year 2001 Form 10-K. In that filing, and in concurrently issued press releases, Defendants withdrew their previous earnings guidance for all of fiscal year 2002, citing in part the declining demand for SA products by cable service providers. SA also announced significant decreases in sales, bookings, and inventory. Following these disclosures, the price of SA stock declined 15%, from its August 16, 2001 close of $25.01 to $21.24 per share on August 17, 2001, which resulted in a market capitalization loss of more than $589 million.

Plaintiffs initially filed this action on July 24, 2001, and filed their amended consolidated complaint on January 31, 2002. Plaintiffs have since moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) to certify a proposed class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of SA, or who sold put options of SA between January 18, 2001, and August 16, 2001. Defendants oppose certification on three principal grounds: (1) Plaintiffs have not satisfied the typicality and adequacy of representation requirements of Rule 23(a); (2) Plaintiffs have not established that common issues of law or fact predominate as required by Rule 23(b)(3); and (3) the proposed class definition is over inclusive.

For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that class certification is warranted.

Discussion

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes the criteria for certifying a case as a class action. Specifically, a class action may be maintained only when it satisfies all the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and at least one of the alternative requirements of Rule 23(b). Rutstein v. Avis Rent-A-Car Sys. Inc., 211 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir.2000). The party seeking class certification bears the burden of establishing that the requirements of Rule 23 have been satisfied. Id.

In determining whether class certification is proper, the Court is required to conduct a “rigorous analysis” of the prerequisites of Rule 23. See, e.g., Beck v. Maximus, Inc., 457 F.3d 291, 297 (3d Cir.2006); Elizabeth M. v. Montenez, 458 F.3d 779, 784 (8th Cir.2006); Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 445 F.3d 311, 318 (4th Cir.2006); Unger v. Amedisys Inc., 401 F.3d 316, 320 (5th Cir.2005). While the likelihood of the plaintiffs’ success on the merits is not a relevant consideration, see Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177-78, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974), the Court is not limited to the pleadings. Rather, it must “take a close look at the facts relevant to the certification question and, if necessary, make specific findings on the propriety of certification.” Thom, 445 F.3d at 319 (quotations omitted). In taking this close look, it is appropriate for the Court to “consider the merits of the case to the degree necessary to determine whether the requirements of Rule 23 will be satisfied.” Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181, 1188 n. 15 (11th Cir.2003).

Under that guidance, the Court addresses the following issues: (1) whether Plaintiffs have established the requirements for class certification with respect to both (a) individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of SA stock during the class period and (b) individuals who sold put options of SA during the class period; and (2) assuming that Rule 23 has been satisfied with respect to one or more of the above groups, whether Plaintiffs have proffered an appropriate class definition.

I. Rule 23(a)

Rule 23(a) provides:

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). The four prerequisites of Rule 23 — numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation— “are designed to limit class claims to those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiffs’ individual claims.” Piazza v. Ebsco Indus., Inc., 273 F.3d 1341, 1346 (11th Cir.2001) (quotation and citation omitted). In doing so, the requirements of Rule 23(a) ensure that “the common bond between the class representatives’ claims and those of the class is strong enough so that it is fair for the fortunes of the class members to rise or fall with the fortunes of the class representatives.” Cooper v. Southern Co., 390 F.3d 695, 713 (11th Cir.2004) (quotations omitted).

A. Numerosity

To satisfy the numerosity requirement, Plaintiffs must establish that the members of the proposed class and subclass are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Fed. R.Civ.P. 23(a). In order to demonstrate numerosity, plaintiffs need not prove that joinder is impossible; rather, plaintiffs “need only show that it would be extremely difficult or inconvenient to join all members of the class.” Anderson v. Garner, 22 F.Supp.2d 1379, 1384 (N.D.Ga.1997). Courts have considered several factors in determining the practicability of joinder, including the size of the class, the ease of identifying its numbers and determining their addresses, the facility of making service on them if joined, and their geographic dispersion. Kilgo v. Bowman Transp.,

Inc., 789 F.2d 859, 878 (11th Cir.1986). Moreover, in federal securities fraud cases, “[njumerosity is generally presumed when a claim involves nationally traded securities.” In re Theragenics Corp. Securities Litig., 205 F.R.D. 687, 694 (N.D.Ga.2002); Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 651 F.2d 1030, 1039 (5th Cir. July 27, 1981).

Defendants do not dispute that the proposed class satisfies Rule 23(a)’s nu-merosity requirement. At all relevant times, SA was traded on the New York Stock Exchange. During this period, approximately 387 million shares of SA stock were traded on the open market. Given the multitude of traders of SA stock during the class period, the Court finds' that joinder would be impracticable. Plaintiffs have therefore satisfied the numerosity requirement.

B. Commonality and Typicality

The typicality and commonality prerequisites of Rule 23 are “distinct but interrelated.” Cooper, 390 F.3d at 713. “Traditionally, commonality refers to the group characteristics of the class as a whole, while typicality refers to the individual characteristics of the named plaintiffs in relation to the class.” Piazza, 273 F.3d at 1346. Both prerequisites, however, share the common purpose of requiring that “a sufficient nexus exists between the legal claims of the named class representatives and those of individual class members to warrant class certification.” Id. To prove a sufficient nexus of claims, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that their claims “share the same essential characteristics as the claims of the class at large.” Cooper, 390 F.3d at 714.

1. Commonality

The commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) requires one or more “questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(2). “Under the Rule 23(a)(2) commonality requirement, a class-action must involve issues that are susceptible to class-wide proof.” Murray, 244 F.3d at 811; Cooper, 390 F.3d at 714. “While not entirely dissimilar to the typicality requirement, Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement measures the extent to which all members of putative class have similar claims.” Cooper, 390 F.3d at 714.

Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs have satisfied the commonality requirement of Rule 23, and the Court readily finds the commonality prong met in this case. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made a series of false or misleading statements during the class period which operated to artificially inflate or maintain the price of SA stock to the detriment of investors. Common questions of law and fact therefore include: (1) whether Defendants violated the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5; (2) whether Defendants intentionally misled investors regarding its business and business prospects between January and June of 2001; (3) whether the market price of SA stock was artificially inflated during the relevant period due to the alleged material misrepresentations and omissions; and (4) whether members of the proposed Class have suffered damages as a result. Plaintiffs have therefore demonstrated commonality.

2. Typicality

To be typical, “[a] class representative must possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members.” Cooper, 390 F.3d at 713 (quoting Murray v. Auslander, 244 F.3d 807, 811 (11th Cir.2001)). The Eleventh Circuit has explained the typicality requirement as follows:

[T]here must be a nexus between the class representative’s claims or defenses and the common questions of fact or law which unite the class. A sufficient nexus is established if the claims or defenses of the class and the class representative arise from the same event or pattern or practice and are based on the same legal theory. Typicality, however, does not require identical claims or defenses. A factual variation will not render a class representative’s claim atypical unless the factual position of the representative markedly differs from that of other members of the class.

Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir.1984).

The Fifth Circuit has more recently emphasized that the test for typicality “is not demanding.” Stirman v. Exxon Corp., 280 F.3d 554, 562 (5th Cir.2002) (quotations omitted). Rather,

the critical inquiry is whether the class representative’s claims have the same essential characteristics of those of the putative class. If the claims arise from a similar course of conduct and share the same legal theory, factual differences will not defeat typicality.

Id,.; see also Murray, 244 F.3d at 811 (“The typicality requirement may be satisfied despite substantial differences ... when there is a ‘strong similarity of legal theories.’ ” (quoting Appleyard v. Wallace, 754 F.2d 955, 958 (11th Cir.1985))).

a. The Class Representatives’ Claims are Typical of PosL-July 19, 2001 Purchasers

Defendants contend that the claims of the proposed class representatives are factually different from those of other members of the proposed class, and thus, Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3). Specifically, Defendants argue that, because all of the proposed class representatives purchased their shares of SA stock prior to the July 19, 2001 disclosure, these individuals, unlike those individuals who purchased after that disclosure, do not have to prove that the July 19, 2001 disclosure was itself fraudulent, or that other actionable misstatements were made between July 19 and August 16, 2001. Defendants also argue that post-July 19 purchasers are subject to several unique reliance-based defenses that do not apply to pre-July 19 purchasers, and as such, the claims of the proposed class representatives fail to satisfy the typicality requirement.

The Court is not convinced that the claims of the named class representatives are rendered atypical merely because they purchased their shares of SA stock prior to the alleged curative disclosure of July 19, 2001. Plaintiffs, as a class, allege that Defendants issued a series of false or misleading statements in the first half of 2001 (all prior to the July 19, 2001 disclosure) that had the effect of shielding declines in demand for SA’s products from the market and artificially inflating the market price for SA stock. They further allege that they relied on the integrity of the market, which incorporated these misstatements, in purchasing or acquiring SA stock during the class period, both before and after the July 19, 2001 partial curative disclosure. Finally, they allege that they suffered a loss as a result of Defendants’ misrepresentations when the truth regarding Defendants misrepresentations made in the first half of 2001 was revealed through both the July and August disclosures. Because the claims of the named class representatives rely on the same allegations of misrepresentations and omissions and share the same legal theory as those of the class they seek to represent, they have established the requisite typicality under Rule 23(a)(3).

In contesting typicality, Defendants attempt to recast the legal theory of post-July 19th stock purchasers as relying exclusively on alleged misrepresentations contained in Defendants’ July 19th disclosure. A review of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, however, makes clear that such an allegation is not essential to the claims of post-July 19th purchasers. As stated above, the thrust of the allegations of both pre- and post-July 19th stock purchasers concern Defendants’ misrepresentations, channel-stuffing activities, and improper accounting occurring during the first half of 2001. While Plaintiffs assert in their class certification papers that the July 19th disclosure was itself materially misleading—because it only partially revealed the extent of Defendants’ prior fraud—it does not follow that proof that this statement constituted a material misrepresentation is an “essential characteristic” of the claims of the post-July 19th purchasers. See Stirman, 280 F.3d at 562. Fairly construed, Plaintiffs allege that the July 19th disclosure, to the extent that it did not fully reveal the truth concerning Defendants’ earlier fraudulent conduct, was a continuation of the fraud occurring between January and June of 2001 that inflated the price that both pre- and post-July 19th purchasers paid for SA stock. Thus, because the claims of both pre- and post-July 19th purchasers arise from the same “pattern or practice” of alleged fraud occurring between January and June of 2001 and rely on the same legal theory, they share a sufficient nexus to establish typicality. See Kornberg, 741 F.2d at 1387.

The Court also declines to find the claims of the proposed class representatives atypical because certain class members may be subject to unique reliance-based defenses separate and apart from those of the class representatives. It is certainly true that a defense which is unique to the class representative and which has the potential to become “the focus of the litigation” may suffice to destroy typicality. See, e.g., Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 903 F.2d 176, 180 (2d Cir.1990); see also 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.24[5] (“Typicality will not be present if the class representative’s claim is subject to one or more unique defenses that likely will be central to the litigation. A unique defense that is central to the litigation precludes a finding of typicality because of the danger that the unique defense will preoccupy the class representative to the detriment of the interests of absent class members.”) (citations omitted). In such a situation, there is a danger that the absent class members will be harmed if their representatives are preoccupied with their own, unique defenses. Gary Plastic, 903 F.2d at 180. But Defendants, in briefs which are notably devoid of citations on this issue, have pointed the Court to no authority indicating that the presence of a possible defense to the claims of some fraction of the nonrepre-sentative class members is sufficient to preclude a finding of typicality. Moreover, having reviewed the filings, the Court is not convinced that a reliance-based defense as to post July-19 purchasers will likely be central to the litigation. Accordingly, the Court declines to find the possible unique defenses waged against post-July 19, 2001 purchasers sufficient to destroy typicality.

b. The Class Representatives’ Claims are Not Typical of Purchasers who Sold their Shares Prior to July 19, and the Class Definition Will Exclude Those Individuals

Defendants argue that any class certified by this Court should not be defined to include the subset of investors who sold their SA stock prior to the July 19, 2001 partial curative disclosure because Plaintiffs have not alleged that any curative disclosure occurred prior to that date. In this respect, Defendants take the position that, as to these pre-July 19 sellers, Plaintiffs have failed to allege loss causation under the Supreme Court’s decision in Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (2005), and thus have no claim as a matter of law. Plaintiffs offer little on this point, and limit the response to a single footnote in which they assert that Defendants’ “proposal is [ ] surplusage” because “[a] person who purchased and sold SA stock prior to the July 19 announcement and did not suffer a loss would necessarily be excluded from the class.” (Reply at 24.)

The allegations of Plaintiffs’ Complaint center entirely around Defendants’ alleged false and misleading statements which shielded declines in the demand for SA’s products from the market, and the resulting loss that occurred when Defendants revealed the truth in their curative diselo-sures of July and August of 2001. Defendants are correct that there is simply nothing in the Complaint which could fairly be read as alleging loss causation in support of the claims of individuals who sold all shares of SA stock prior to the July 19, 2001 curative disclosure.

The likelihood that class members will prevail on the merits is not at issue on a motion for class certification. See Eisen, 417 U.S. at 178, 94 S.Ct. 2140. Nevertheless, the absence of any allegation or arguable legal basis for the claims of this small subset of SA stockholders, who sold their shares prior to July 19, 2001, convinces this Court that the claims of the class representatives' — all of which rely on a unified theory of loss causation occurring in July and/or August of 2001 — are not typical of those proposed class members who sold their shares of SA stock prior to those two curative disclosures. The claims and legal theories of the purchasers who bought shares of SA stock during the class period but sold all of their shares prior to July 19, 2001, are significantly distinct from purchasers who purchased or retained their shares through and after July 19, 2001. The former have not arguably alleged a curative disclosure as required to prove loss causation. In view of this failing, the Court concludes that the claims of the class representatives' — which do rely on arguable allegations of loss causation stemming from the curative statements issued in July and August of 2001 — are not typical of those individuals who sold all of their shares of SA stock prior to July 2001. As such, the Court declines to include within the class definition SA stockholders who sold their shares prior to July 19. The Court finds, however, that the a typicality of the class representatives’ claims to the claims of this small subset of pre-July 19 sellers does not render the claims of the class representatives atypical of the remainder of the class members, and concludes that Plaintiffs’ have met the burden of demonstrating typicality as to the remainder of the class members’ claims.

In sum, the claims of the proposed class representatives are typical of those of other members of the proposed class, except for pre-July 19, 2001 sellers of SA stock. Therefore, Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied, but the Court excludes pre-July 19, 2001 sellers from the class definition.

c. Vigilant Investors

Defendants assert that Vigilant is subject to unique reliance defenses, and thus, its claims are not typical of those of the class members. In this respect, Defendants argue that: (1) Vigilant has not established that the market for SA put options was efficient, and (2) Vigilant cannot successfully invoke the presumption of reliance because its controlling officer, Mr. Blumberg, is an expert in the field of securities and related litigation. In the Court’s view, neither contention defeats the typicality of Vigilant’s claims to those of the class members.

Notably, Defendants cite no authority for the proposition that Plaintiffs are obligated to introduce specific evidence of efficiency in the market for SA put options, over and above Plaintiffs’ obligation to adduce evidence of efficiency in the market for the underlying SA securities. Rather, it appears that Defendants misapprehend the nature of the proof of market efficiency required for Vigilant to avail itself of a presumption of reliance under the fraud on the market theory. The relevant question is not whether Vigilant has established that the market for SA put options was itself efficient. Rather, the question is whether a seller of put options is entitled to rely on the stock market to accurately reflect the value of the underlying stock upon which the put option is sold.

Although there is little authority on the subject, in the Court’s view, a put options seller, upon proof of market efficiency in the underlying stock, is generally entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reliance. See In re Priceline.com, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 89, 100 (D.Conn.2006) (finding put options trader presumptively relied on integrity of market price in underlying stock and thus was adequate and typical class representative); cf. Tolan v. Computervision Corp., 696 F.Supp. 771, 779 (D.Mass.1988) (“Traders in puts and calls rely on the integrity of the • information disseminated in the market just as do purchasers and sellers of the underlying security.”); In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Securities Litig., 199 F.R.D. 119, 123-24 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (holding that options traders were typical and adequate class representatives in action proceeding under fraud on the market theory); Moskowitz v. Lopp, 128 F.R.D. 624, 631 (E.D.Pa.1989) (holding that options trader could rely upon the fraud on the market presumption and was an adequate class representative).

A put options seller, like the purchaser of stock, generally profits only when a stock maintains or increases its value. That is so because the option buyer has no reason to exercise the option unless the stock price declines. If the stock price maintains or increases, and the option expires without the buyer electing to exercise, then the seller profits the premium paid for the option.

Stated another way, by betting that the stock price will maintain or increase, the put option seller generally relies — in like fashion to a stock purchaser — on the integrity of the price of the underlying stock. He does so both in deciding to sell the option and in setting the premium and strike prices. The put option seller also suffers a harm similar to that suffered by a stock investor when the revelation of the truth concerning prior fraudulent conduct causes an artificially inflated stock price to fall. In such a ease, the put option seller is forced to bear the brunt of the injury caused by the fraud. Once the option buyer predictably exercises the option, the seller is effectively forced to purchase the stock at the fraudulently inflated strike price — retroactively placing the put options seller in the shoes of a defrauded stock purchaser.

In sum, therefore, where a put options seller demonstrates market efficiency in the underlying security, he is generally entitled to rely on the fraud on the market theory. As the Court discusses in greater detail below, Plaintiffs have adduced sufficient evidence demonstrating that the market for SA stock during the class period was efficient. Because Defendants offer nothing which could suffice to rebut the presumption of Vigilant’s reliance under the fraud on the market theory, the Court declines to find that Vigilant is atypical due to the lack of evidence of efficiency in the market for SA put options.

In their second challenge, Defendants argue that Vigilant cannot invoke the presumption of reliance because “Mr. Blumberg is an expert in the field of securities law and related litigation.” However, a plaintiffs expertise and sophistication is not relevant to the typicality inquiry. See Kennedy v. Tallant, 710 F.2d 711, 717 (11th Cir.1983) (holding that sophistication of class representative is irrelevant to the issue of typicality); Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 905 (9th Cir.1975) (“Differences in sophistication among purchasers have no bearing in the impersonal market fraud context, because dissemination of false information necessarily translates through market mechanisms into price inflation which harms each investor identically.”); In re Amerifirst Securities Litig., 139 F.R.D. 423, 429 (S.D.Fla.1991) (“[T]he law in this Circuit is that neither a representative’s degree of investment experience and sophistication nor his degree of reliance will preclude satisfaction of the typicality requirement on a motion for class certification.”); Michaels v. Ambassador Group, Inc., 110 F.R.D. 84, 89 (E.D.N.Y.1986) (“If the defendants perpetrated a fraud-on-the-market, then even the most sophisticated investor would be deceived.”). Vigilant’s participation in pri- or securities litigation does not alone render its claims atypical of those of the class members.

In sum, Defendants’ challenges to the typicality of Vigilant’s claims as to those of other class members are without merit. Because Vigilant’s claims arise from a similar course of conduct and share the same legal theory as those of the class members, Vigilant satisfies the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3).

C. Adequacy of Representation

The adequacy of representation prerequisite of Rule 23 requires that the class representatives have common interests with the non-representative class members and requires that the representatives demonstrate that they will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel. Piazza, 273 F.3d at 1346. Thus, the adequacy of representation analysis involves two inquiries: “(1) whether any substantial conflicts of interest exist between the representatives and the class, and (2) whether the representatives will adequately prosecute the action.” Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir.2003) (quoting In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litig., 213 F.R.D. 447, 460-461 (N.D.Ala.2003)). The existence of minor conflicts alone are not sufficient to defeat a party’s claim to class certification. Rather, “the conflict must be a ‘fundamental’ one going to the specific issues in controversy.” Id.

In opposing class certification, Defendants contend that (1) class certification should be denied because class representatives all purchased SA stock before the July 19, 2001 disclosure and thus cannot adequately represent the interests of post-' July 19th purchasers; (2) Vigilant Investors cannot adequately represent class members because it is subject to unique defenses; and (3) seller/purchaser conflicts exist among class members which render the interests of class members antagonistic to one another. The Court addresses each of Defendants’ arguments in turn.

1. Adequacy of pre-July 19 purchasers’ representation of post-July 19 purchasers

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs Graeber, Hale, and Petersen cannot adequately represent class members who purchased SA shares after the July 19, 2001 disclosure. This is so, Defendants posit, because individuals who purchased SA stock prior to the July 19, 2001 disclosure do not have to prove that the July 19, 2001 disclosure was itself fraudulent, or that other actionable misstatements were made between July 19 and August 16, 2001. Defendants assert that investors who purchased SA stock after the July 19, 2001 disclosure would be required to prove that the price of SA shares was artificially inflated during that period due to the July 19, 2001 disclosure and despite what curative effect the July 19, 2001 disclosure may have had. Defendants also argue that, because “the post-July 19, 2001 investors are subject to numerous unique defenses that do not apply to pre-July 19, 2001 purchasers like Graeber, Hale, and Petersen,” these individuals cannot adequately represent the interests of post-July 19, 2001 purchasers. (Resp. at 17.)

For largely the same reasons provided above in the Court’s discussion of typicality, the Court concludes that Defendants’ argument relies on a flawed understanding of the claims of post-July 19th purchasers, and as such, is without merit. Plaintiffs class allegations rely on identical allegations of fraud that occurred during the Class Period and which allegedly inflated the price of SA stock both before and after the July 19th curative disclosure. While Plaintiffs assert in their class certification papers that the July 19th disclosure was itself materially misleading because it only partially revealed the extent of Defendants’ prior fraud — it does not follow that post-July 19th purchasers must necessarily prove independently actionable statements occurring on July 19 to succeed on their fraud claims. In any event, nothing about the positions of the class representatives indicates the existence of a conflict of interest which goes to the heart of the case, and Defendants have not demonstrated that their interests are antagonistic to those of class members who purchased shares after the July 19, 2001 disclosure. To the contrary, their interests are aligned: “It will be in the interest of each class member to maximize the inflation from those causes at every point in the class period, both to demonstrate the sine qua non liability and to maximize his own potential damages[;] the more the stock is inflated, the more every class member stands to recover.” Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 909-10 (9th Cir.1975); see also CV Reit, Inc. v. Levy, 144 F.R.D. 690, 698 (S.D.Fla.1992) (rejecting argument that the plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives because they have little incentive to prove the materiality of nondis-closures made subsequent to their own stock purchases in order to recover their own claims); In re Baldwin-United Corp. Litigation, 122 F.R.D. at 424, 428 (“[U]n-persuasive is the argument ... that the Plaintiffs who purchased ... early in the class' period have no incentive to prove facts relevant to a purported fraud committed on a subsequent purchaser.”).

Accordingly, the proposed class representatives adequately represent post-July 19 purchasers notwithstanding the fact that they purchased their shares before that date.

2. Vigilant Investors

Defendants assert that Vigilant is not an adequate representative of the proposed class because Vigilant “shorted” SA stock and failed to accurately disclose its SA stock transactions on its shareholder certification. With respect to their first point, Defendants argue that it is not appropriate to appoint as a representative plaintiff an investor who engaged in “short selling” because that investor, unlike other members of the class, effectively bet against the market price of the security rising.

In certain instances, short selling may be inconsistent with the assumptions of the fraud on the market theory. See In re Critical Path, Inc. Securities Litig., 156 F.Supp.2d 1102, 1109-10 (N.D.Cal.2001); Zlotnick v. TIE Communications, 836 F.2d 818, 821-23 (concluding that short seller may not rely on rebut-table presumption of reliance under fraud on the market theory because short seller operates under assumption that market price does not accurately reflect a stock’s true value). While there is at least a question in this case as to whether Vigilant engaged in such trading practices on a limited basis, the Court declines to find, on the facts of this case, that it is an inadequate representative for that reason. The record reveals that Vigilant wrote a put option on July 13, 2001, for 20,000 shares of SA stock. When Defendants issued their July 19, 2001 curative disclosure and the stock price fell approximately 35%, Vigilant suffered a loss of approximately $150,000. (Def.’s Resp. [234], Ex. 6.) In light of that transaction, Vigilant has every incentive to vigorously prosecute its claims in this case, and as such, its interests are entirely aligned with those of the other class members. Therefore, Vigilant’s trading practices do not render it an inadequate class representative.

With respect to Defendants’ second argument, the Court similarly declines to find Vigilant to be an inadequate representative due to its failure to disclose all put options transactions concerning SA stock on its shareholder certification. While Defendants are not entirely clear on this point, the Court understands Defendants’ argument to be that this failure calls into question Vigilant’s credibility, and that this alleged lack of credibility has the potential to distract the litigation and harm the class members whom Vigilant represents.

“A plaintiff’s lack of credibility and the impurity of his motives can render him an ‘inadequate’ class representative.” Dubin v. Miller, 132 F.R.D. 269, 272 (D.Colo.1990). But, “[t]o defeat class representation, any allegations concerning the representative’s adequacy must be relevant to the claims in the litigation, such that the problems could become the focus of cross-examination and unique defenses at trial, to the detriment of the class.” German by German v. Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 168 F.R.D. 145, 154 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (quotations omitted). Thus, to render a class representative inadequate, an attack on his credibility must be “on an issue critical to one of [his] ... causes of action.” Kline v. Wolf, 702 F.2d 400, 403 (2d Cir.1983).

Here, Defendants complain that Vigilant failed to disclose all of its transactions relating to SA stock on its PSLRA certification. In the Court’s view, this failure is not sufficient to render Vigilant an inadequate representative. Defendants do not argue that questions concerning Vigilant’s compliance with the disclosure requirements of the PSLRA implicate a critical issue in this litigation. In view of this failing, and because Vigilant’s disclosure was subsequently completed by amendment, the Court declines to find that Vigilant’s initially incomplete PSLRA certification precludes it from adequately representing the interests of class members in this case.

3. Purchaser/Seller conflicts

Defendants assert that a conflict exists between class members who bought SA stock during the class period and those class members who bought but thereafter sold SA stock during the class period. Defendants observe that class members who purchased on any given day have an incentive to show that the price they paid was maximally inflated due to the alleged fraud (to later recoup the maximum damages when the price declines), while class members who sold on the same day have an incentive to show that the price at which they sold was, at the time of sale, minimally inflated by the alleged fraud (in an effort to show that their loss was entirely caused by an earlier revelation of fraud). Defendants contend that this conflict renders the class representatives inadequate, and thus, precludes class certification.

In support of their position, Defendants rely on the case of In re Seagate Technology II Securities Litigation, 843 F.Supp. 1341, 1358 (N.D.Cal.1994). In Seagate, the court criticized the presumption of reliance in securities fraud cases, contending that it leads courts to ignore the traditional elements of a securities fraud claim. See Seagate, 843 F.Supp. at 1357-58 (“Acceptance of the logic of the fraud on the market theory ... leads to the conclusion that there is no need in a securities fraud case for separate inquiries into materiality, reliance, causation, and damages.” (quoting Daniel R. Fischel, Use of Modern Finance Theory in Securities Fraud Cases, 38 Bus. Law 1, 13 (1982))). It also found irreconcilable the interests of individuals who purchased and individuals who sold stock on the same day because of the incentive to maximize one’s own damages by maximizing price inflation on the date of purchase and maximizing loss on the date of sale. Because the Seagate Court concluded that buyers and sellers had antagonistic interests with respect to the “central” issue of price inflation, the court concluded that a conflict over price inflation necessarily “is at the ‘heart of the suit,’ ” and thus could preclude a finding of adequacy of representation. See id. at 1358.

A decided majority of courts have declined to follow Seagate, however, including one court in this district. See, e.g., In re Miller Indus., Inc. Sec. Litig., 186 F.R.D. 680, 687 (N.D.Ga.1999) (“Given the strong weight of authority against the reasoning of Seagate Technology II and the Eleventh Circuit’s inclination to certify classes in securities-fraud cases, the Court rejects the Defendants’ contentions that the alleged intra-class conflicts should preclude class certification.”). These courts have reasoned that the amount of price inflation chiefly relates to the amount of an individual class member’s damages, an issue which does not in and of itself defeat class certification. In In re Gaming Lottery Securities Litigation, 58 F.Supp.2d 62 (S.D.N.Y.1999), for example, the Court rejected the reasoning of Seagate Technology II, explaining:

[Seagate ] overstates the importance of price inflation. The chief role of price inflation remains its function in determining each plaintiffs damages. The common questions with respect to whether misleading statements or omissions were made, whether such statements were material, and whether they were made with scienter, bind class members with more force than the varying questions related to price inflation drive them apart.

Id. at 70.

A myriad of other courts have expressed similar doubt concerning the reasoning of Seagate Technology II. See In re Baan Co. Securities Litig., 2002 WL 32307825, *7 (D.D.C. July 19, 2002) (rejecting Seagate Technology II and stating that “any minor conflicts in the timing of the purchase and sale of stock by class members are far outweighed by the common interest in establishing misrepresentations made by defendants, and do not stand as a bar to certification”); In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Securities Litig., 191 F.R.D. 369, 377 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (stating that “the holding in Seagate has been widely discredited”); Weikel v. Tower Semiconductor Ltd., 183 F.R.D. 377 (D.N.J.1998) (stating that “[gjiven the weight of authority, and the favor with which this Circuit views Federal securities law class actions, the reasoning of Seagate II will not be followed,” and explaining that “[a]ny concerns that may arise can be adequately addressed by the creation of subclasses”); In re Mut. Sav. Bank Sec. Litig., 166 F.R.D. 377, 384 (E.D.Mich.1996) (disagreeing with Seagate and finding that creation of subclasses is a manageable way to minimize any potential conflict); Freedman v. Louisianar-Pacific Corp., 922 F.Supp. 377 (D.Or.1996) (declining to follow Seagate and stating that “the conflict, if any, is peripheral, and substantially outweighed by the class members’ common interests ... in establishing the existence and materiality of misrepresentations”); In re Intelligent Electronics, Inc., Securities Litigation, 1996 WL 67622, *4 (E.D.Pa.1996) (denial of class certification based on purely theoretical conflicts is not warranted); Picard Chem. Profit Sharing Plan v. Perrigo Co., 1996 WL 739170 (W.D.Mich.1996) (holding that the potential for intra-class conflict is a peripheral concern to a class whose primary interest is in proving the materiality of the alleged omissions in an effort to prove liability); In re Regal Communications Corp. Sec. Litig., 1995 WL 550454, at *8 (E.D.Pa.1995) (stating that, “contrary to Seagate II, it is the existence and materiality of a misstatement or omission that is central, and from it, price inflation and reliance are presumed”); Welling v. Alexy, 155 F.R.D. 654, 662 (N.D.Cal.1994) (“We altogether disagree ... that such potential conflicts afford a valid reason at this time for refusing to certify a class.”); In re AST Research Sec. Litig., 1994 WL 722888, at *4 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 8, 1994) (“Any conflicting interests in trading fluctuations in inflation during the class period are secondary.”); Yamner v. Boich, 1994 WL 514035, at *8 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 15, 1994) (disagreeing with the view expressed in Seagate II that conflicts over price inflation are essentially conflicts over liability issues such as materiality). But see Ziemack v. Centel Corp., 163 F.R.D. 530 (N.D.Ill.1995) (adopting Seagate); Ballan v. Upjohn Co., 159 F.R.D. 473 (W.D.Mich.1994) (same).

In view of this weight of authority, the Court declines to follow Seagate in this case, and agrees with the majority view that any buyer-seller conflicts which may arise in this case can be adequately dealt with through the creation of subclasses. Unlike in Seagate and Bailan, one of the few cases which found Seagate’s reasoning persuasive, the alleged partial disclosures in this case were neither numerous nor made over an extended period of time. Contrast Bailan, 159 F.R.D. at 484 (finding creation of subclasses inappropriate where plaintiffs alleged nine misrepresentations, fifteen omissions, and nineteen curative disclosures on thirty-one different occasions). Where, as here, there are at most two alleged curative disclosures, the creation of discrete subclasses remains a viable and easily manageable option. See, e.g., In re Intelligent Electronics, 1996 WL 67622 at *5 (finding use of subclasses adequate); In re Mutual Sav. Bank, 166 F.R.D. at 385 (same); Picard Chem., 1996 WL 739170, at *6 (same). Accordingly, the Court declines to find that the theoretical possibility of seller-purchaser conflicts is sufficient to preclude class certification under Rule 23(a)(4).

In sum, the Court finds that no substantial conflicts of interest exist between the class representatives and the class members. The Court also finds that the representatives will adequately prosecute this action. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ class meets the adequacy of representation requirements of Rule 23(a)(4).

II. Rule 23(b)

A. Predominance of Common Issues

Once the plaintiffs have established the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a), they must also satisfy at least one of the alternative requirements of Rule 23(b). Piazza, 273 F.3d at 1346. In this case, Plaintiffs assert that they have satisfied Rule 23(b)(3), which provides that class treatment may be appropriate where “the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and that a class action is superi- or to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3). Matters that the Court may consider in making this determination include:

(A) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action.

Id.

“The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Amchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997). “That common questions of law or fact predominate over individualized questions means that ‘the issues in the class action that are subject to generalized proof, and thus applicable to the class as a whole, must predominate over those issues that are subject only to individualized proof.’ ” Rutstein, 211 F.3d at 1233 (quoting Kerr v. City of West Palm Beach, 875 F.2d 1546, 1558 (11th Cir.1989)). “The predominance requirement ‘does not require that all issues be common to all parties,’ rather, it mandates that ‘resolution of the common questions affect all or a substantial number of the class members.’ ” In re TriState Crematory Litig., 215 F.R.D. 660, 692 (N.D.Ga.2003) (quoting Watson v. Shell Oil Co., 979 F.2d 1014, 1022 (5th Cir.1992)). Common questions of fact or law will therefore predominate if they have a direct impact on every class member’s effort to establish liability and on every class member’s entitlement to relief. Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241, 1255 (11th Cir.2004). In contrast, “[w]here, after adjudication of the classwide issues, plaintiffs must still introduce a great deal of individualized proof or argue a number of individualized legal points to establish most or all of the elements of their individual claims, such claims are not suitable for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).” Id.

Defendants contend that class certification is inappropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) because individual issues will predominate over common ones. In this respect, Defendants argue, first, that individual issues of reliance will predominate over common issues because Plaintiffs will not be able to avail themselves of a presumption of reliance under the “fraud on the market” theory. Second, Defendants argue that individual issues of damages will predominate because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that damages can be calculated on a class-wide basis. The Court addresses each of Defendants’ arguments in turn.

1. Reliance

“To determine whether common questions predominate, [the Court is] called upon to examine the cause of action asserted in the complaint on behalf of the putative class.” Allapattah Svcs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 333 F.3d 1248, 1260 (11th Cir.2003) (quoting Rutstein, 211 F.3d at 1234 (alterations omitted)). Thus, to determine whether the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied in this case, the Court considers what Plaintiffs must prove to prevail on their claims under § 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10-b5, and whether the elements of each of these claims are susceptible to class-wide proof.

In order to establish a violation of § 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10-b5, Plaintiffs must prove (1) a misstatement or omission, (2) of a material fact, (3) made with scienter, (4) on which plaintiffs relied, (5) that proximately caused their injuries. Ziemba v. Cascade Intern., Inc., 256 F.3d 1194, 1202 (11th Cir.2001). With respect to the reliance element, plaintiffs who are proceeding under a traditional fraud theory must usually prove actual, individualized reliance on the material misstatement or omission, thereby precluding resolution of their claims through a class action. See, e.g., Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 745 (5th Cir.1996) (“[A] fraud class action cannot be certified when individual reliance will be at issue.”). The Supreme Court has recognized, however, that “modern securities markets, literally involving millions of shares changing hands daily, differ from the face-to-face transactions contemplated by early fraud cases.... ” Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 240-47, 108 S.Ct. 978, 99 L.Ed.2d 194 (1988). National securities markets, the Court observed, are “impersonal and well-developed” and thus generally incorporate all publicly available information, including material misstatements. Id. at 246-47, 108 S.Ct. 978. On this premise, the Court adopted the widely recognized “fraud on the market” theory, which relieves the plaintiff of the burden of proving actual, individualized reliance on a defendant’s misstatement by permitting a rebuttable presumption that the plaintiff relied on the “integrity of the market price,” which incorporated the misstatement. Id. at 247, 108 S.Ct. 978. Thus, even if the purchasers do not directly rely on the statements.

[t]he fraud on the market theory is based on the hypothesis that, in an open and developed securities market, the price of a company’s stock is determined by the available material information regarding the company and its business .... Misleading statements will therefore defraud purchasers of stock

Basic, 485 U.S. at 241-42, 108 S.Ct. 978 (quoting Peil v. Speiser, 806 F.2d 1154, 1160-61 (3d Cir.1986)).

To avail themselves of the fraud-on-the-market theory’s presumption, the plaintiffs must show that “(1) the defendant made public material misrepresentations, (2) the defendant’s shares were traded in an efficient market, and (3) the plaintiffs traded shares between the time the misrepresentations were made and the time the truth was revealed.” Greenberg v. Crossroads Systems, Inc., 364 F.3d 657, 661 (5th Cir.2004). Defendants may rebut the presumption by “[a]ny showing that severs the link between the alleged misrepresentation and either the price received (or paid) by the plaintiff, or his decision to trade at a fair market price.” Id. at 661-62 (quoting Basic, 485 U.S. at 247, 108 S.Ct. 978).

In opposing class certification, Defendants argue that individual issues of reliance will predominate because Plaintiffs are not entitled to a presumption of reliance under the fraud on the market theory for two reasons: first, Plaintiffs have failed to adduce sufficient evidence for the Court to find that the market for SA stock was efficient; and second, even if the market for SA stock was efficient, they have adduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of reliance. The Court disagrees with Defendants on both counts.

a. The market for SA stock was efficient

Before an investor can be presumed to have relied upon the integrity of the market price for a security, he must demonstrate that the market for that security is was “efficient” during the relevant period. In re PolyMedica Corp. Securities Litig., 432 F.3d 1, 7 (3d Cir.2005). “Efficiency refers to the flow of information in the relevant market and the effect of that information on the price of the stock.” Id. at 7-8. “In an efficient market, the defendant’s misrepresentations are said to have been absorbed into, and are therefore reflected in, the stock price.” Id. at 8. On the other hand, where a market lacks efficiency, “there is no assurance that the market price was affected by the defendant’s alleged misstatement at all. Instead, the price may reflect information wholly unrelated to the misstatement.” Id.

As an initial matter, the parties dispute the extent to which the Court should consider expert testimony on the efficiency issue. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are required to come forward with evidence of market efficiency, which is to say, that merely pleading market efficiency is not sufficient to sustain a presumption of reliance. While the Court agrees with Defendants that it is not enough to merely allege that the market for a given security was efficient, the Court concludes that there is more than sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding of efficiency.

To determine whether a security trades on an efficient market, courts have considered a number of factors, which include:

(1) the average weekly trading volume expressed as a percentage of total outstanding shares; (2) the number of securities analysts following and reporting on the stock; (3) the extent to which market makers and arbitrageurs trade in the stock; (4) the company’s eligibility to file SEC registration Form S-3 (as opposed to Form S-l or S — 2); (5) the existence of empirical facts “showing a cause and effect relationship between unexpected corporate events or financial releases and an immediate response in the stock price”; (6) the company’s market capitalization; (7) the bid-ask spread for stock sales; and (8) float, the stock’s trading volume without counting insider-owned stock.

Unger, 401 F.3d at 323; see also Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 368 (4th Cir.2004) (stating that courts “should consider factors such as, among others, whether the security is actively traded, the volume of trades, and the extent to which it is followed by market professionals”); Cammer v. Bloom, 711 F.Supp. 1264, 1285-87 (D.N.J.1989) (examining (1) average trading volume, (2) number of securities analysts following the stock, (3) number of market makers, (4) whether the company was entitled to file an S-3 Registration Statement, if relevant, and (5) evidence of a cause and effect relationship between unexpected news and stock-price changes). While proof of every factor may not be necessary in all cases, “once a court endeavors to apply these factors, they must be weighed analytically, not merely counted, as each of them represents a distinct facet of market efficiency.” Unger, 401 F.3d at 323.

In this case, the record before the Court shows, and indeed Defendants do not dispute, that at all relevant times SA was listed and actively traded on the New York Stock Exchange. (Comply 256(a).) During the class period, more than 387 million shares of SA stock changed hands. {Id. ¶ 256(c).) The daily trading volume of SA stock averaged greater than 2.6 million shares per day, and the average weekly trading volume, expressed as a percentage of outstanding shares, ranged between 5.2% and 6% during the class period. {Id. ¶ 256(d).) SA was followed by at least fourteen different brokerage houses and or broker/dealers, and in 2001 alone, no less than twenty different analysts issued reports on the company. (Id. ¶ 252; Vellrath Decl. ¶ 29.) At all times SA was authorized to file S-3 registration statements, and regularly filed periodic public reports with the SEC. (Comply 256(b); Vellrath Decl. ¶¶ 30-31.) In the period leading up to the July 19, 2001 disclosure, the company’s market capitalization was in excess of $5 billion, placing it in the top one-third of its peers. (Vellrath Decl. IT 33.) The bid-ask spread for sales of SA stock never exceeded 1.9%, and the float exceeded 96% during the class period. Defendants do not challenge the substance of this evidence or its application to the market efficiency factors set forth above. Accordingly, the Court finds that each of these factors weighs heavily in favor of a finding of market efficiency.

While Defendants do not contest the above factors, neither do they accept Plaintiffs’ contentions that the market for SA stock was efficient. Instead, Defendants take the position that Plaintiffs have failed to establish an efficient market for SA stock because “the price of [SA’s] stock did not move in a statistically significant positive way in response to the dissemination of any alleged misstatements identified in the Complaint.” (Br. in Opp’n to Mot. for Class Cert. [234] at 10.) In support of that position, Defendants rely on the affidavit of their expert, Dr. Cox, who conducted an “event study” which analyzed the effect of 20 allegedly fraudulent statements identified in the Complaint on the market price of SA stock. (Cox Aff. ¶¶ 10, 14-17.) According to Dr. Cox, the results of his event study did not show statistically significant positive stock price movement in response to these allegedly fraudulent statements. (Id. ¶ 17.) Based on these results, he opines that “[t]he Complaint’s efficiency claim is inconsistent with its allegations of material false and misleading statements.” (Id.)

The Court declines to find that the market for SA stock was not efficient based upon Dr. Cox’s event study. First, Dr. Cox’s study relates only to one of the nine factors that courts have identified as important in determining market efficiency— namely, the “the existence of empirical facts showing a cause and effect relationship between unexpected corporate events or financial releases and an immediate response in the stock price.” Unger, 401 F.3d at 323. In any event, because a cause and effect relationship is better demonstrated upon the disclosure of unexpected information, it is notable that Dr. Cox’s event study does not at all consider the alleged curative disclosures of July and August of 2001, which allegedly contained new, market-correcting information that caused, at least in part, an immediate response in stock price. As is discussed in more detail below, there is substantial evidence demonstrating a causal relationship between the price of SA stock and Defendants’ financial releases. Thus, despite Dr. Cox’s study, this factor, like each of the others, weighs in favor of efficiency.

Second, Dr. Cox does not opine that the market for SA stock was not efficient. Instead, his opinion on this issue is limited to his conclusion that the results of his study “indicate that the Complaint’s efficiency claim is inconsistent with its allegations.” (Cox Aff. ¶¶ 10,17.) In view of his failure to opine on the specific question this Court must address, the Court affords his affidavit little weight.

Third, Plaintiffs have submitted a declaration from their own expert, Dr. Vellrath, in which he affirmatively concludes, based upon an event study which includes an examination of the market response