What is truly at stake here is the validity of a fundamental protection mechanism; the notion of pure opposition is an excessive simplification. The presumption of market fraud is not an adversary of negative fraud tactics; it is the legal foundation that allows them to be challenged, providing an asymmetry favorable to investors. Without this presumption, the burden of proof would become insurmountable for injured investors, making the pursuit of these market manipulations almost impossible. For example, if a company deliberately devalues its shares for a buyback, this presumption allows investors to form a class action to contest this manipulation, assuming they relied on the integrity of the market.