Resources

{ Banner Image } Print PDF
Share
Subscribe to Publications

People

Services

But That’s Just, Like, Your Opinion, Man: U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Executive Statement Liability Under Securities Law

March 30, 2015

Statements of opinion do not constitute an “untrue statement of fact” if they turn out to be incorrect, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, drawing a line between the types of federal disclosure statements that can create liability for executives under securities laws.

The ruling struck down a Sixth Circuit decision that corporate executives could be responsible for opinions expressed to investors that later turned out to be false, and that plaintiffs need only allege that the stated belief was “objectively false,” not that the executives knew it was false at the time it was expressed. 

In 2006, a group of pension fund investors filed suit in Omnicare, alleging the company’s statement that it complied with federal and state law tied to a 2005 public offering was false and misleading under Section 11 of the Securities Act, because the company and four executives concealed purported payments from drug manufacturers as part of a kickback scheme.  Because Omnicare failed to disclose these alleged illicit activities in a registration statement issued with a December 2005 public offering, the investors argued that Omnicare misled them when it said it believed it was in “legal compliance.”

The unanimous Supreme Court struck down the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, which held that the claims were adequately stated, reasoning that the Sixth Circuit decision “wrongly conflates facts and opinions,”  and explaining the difference as “a statement of fact (‘the coffee is hot’) expresses certainty about a thing, whereas a statement of opinion (‘I think the coffee is hot’) does not.” 

The court noted, however, that the executives could be liable under Section 11“[i]f a registration statement omits material facts about the issuer’s inquiry into or knowledge concerning a statement of opinion, and if those facts conflict with what a reasonable investor would take from the statement itself..”  The Omnicare decision resolves a long-standing circuit split involving the pleading standard for cases under Section 11 of the Securities Act.


Robert Murkowski
+1.313.496.8423
murkowski@millercanfield.com

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. Cookie Preference Center

Your Privacy

When you visit our website, we use cookies on your browser to collect information. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences, or your device, and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to and to provide a more personalized web experience. For more information about how we use Cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Always Active

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. These cookies may only be disabled by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Functional Cookies

Always Active

Some functions of the site require remembering user choices, for example your cookie preference, or keyword search highlighting. These do not store any personal information.

Form Submissions

Always Active

When submitting your data, for example on a contact form or event registration, a cookie might be used to monitor the state of your submission across pages.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.

Powered by Firmseek