A meets this requirement by inherently incorporating within it a showing of detrimental reliance: the deficiency payments themselves. Cf. Chevalier v. Baird Sav. Ass’n, 72 F.R.D. 140, 149 (E.D.Pa.1976) (“In the instant case, the payment of the alleged excess interest charge would be sufficient to satisfy the [Sherman Act] impact requirement. Since, by definition all members of the class have made such a payment, there are no individual questions involved in this aspect of the claim.”). Presumed reliance under civil RICO is generally disfavored outside of certain narrow contexts. The Supreme Court applies presumed reliance, under the fraud-on-the-market theory, in the securities litigation context. See Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 248, 108 S.Ct. 978, 99 L.Ed.2d 194 (1988) (<HOLDING>). However, “the rationale for the theory — the
holding that reliance on a material omission may be presumed in a rule 10b5 case recognizing presumption holding however that a first party insured is not entitled to a rebuttable presumption of harm holding that guidelines create a rebuttable presumption recognizing a rebuttable presumption of reliance in rule 10b5