
Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Dan Brecher
Date: April 17, 2015
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comThe Court’s decision resolves the existing Circuit split and creates a new legal standard for future securities lawsuits.
The plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare, Inc. (“Omnicare”) violated Section 11 when it filed a registration statement that contained two statements expressing the company’s opinion that it was in compliance with federal and state laws. The federal government later sued Omnicare for allegedly receiving kickbacks from pharmaceutical manufacturers and pension funds that purchased the company’s stock. Section 11 creates a cause of action for investors who have acquired securities under a registration statement that either “contain[s] an untrue statement of a material fact” or “omit[s] to state a material fact . . . necessary to make the statements therein not misleading.”
The District Court granted Omnicare’s motion to dismiss after finding that the plaintiff failed to allege that Omnicare’s officers knew they were violating the law. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that Section 11 provides for strict liability and, therefore, the defendant’s state of mind is irrelevant. According to the appeals court, “Once a false statement has been made, a defendant’s knowledge is not relevant to a strict liability claim.”
The Supreme Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s decision, holding that the court’s holding “wrongly conflates facts and opinions.” Given that the lower court applied the incorrect legal standard, the Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court analyzed Section 11’s two clauses independently. With regard to statements of opinion, the Court clarified that a statement of opinion does not constitute an “untrue statement of . . . fact” simply because the stated opinion ultimately proves incorrect. Rather, the Court held that “a statement of opinion thus qualifies as an ‘untrue statement of . . . fact’ if that fact is untrue—i.e., if the opinion expressed was not sincerely held.”
As for the omissions clause, the Court held that Section 11 liability may arise if 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, reading the statement fairly and in context, would take from the statement.
“A reasonable investor may, depending on the circumstances, understand an opinion statement to convey facts about how the speaker has formed the opinion — or, otherwise put, about the speaker’s basis for holding that view,” Justice Elena Kagan explained. “And if the real facts are otherwise, but not provided, the opinion statement will mislead its audience.”
Because the lower courts failed to apply the correct legal standard to the plaintiff’s omissions claim, the Supreme Court remanded the case with the following instructions: “The court must review the Funds’ complaint to determine whether it adequately alleges that Omnicare omitted from the registration statement some specific fact that would have been material to a reasonable investor. If so, the court must decide whether the alleged omission rendered Omnicare’s opinion statements misleading in context.”
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
The Court’s decision resolves the existing Circuit split and creates a new legal standard for future securities lawsuits.
The plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare, Inc. (“Omnicare”) violated Section 11 when it filed a registration statement that contained two statements expressing the company’s opinion that it was in compliance with federal and state laws. The federal government later sued Omnicare for allegedly receiving kickbacks from pharmaceutical manufacturers and pension funds that purchased the company’s stock. Section 11 creates a cause of action for investors who have acquired securities under a registration statement that either “contain[s] an untrue statement of a material fact” or “omit[s] to state a material fact . . . necessary to make the statements therein not misleading.”
The District Court granted Omnicare’s motion to dismiss after finding that the plaintiff failed to allege that Omnicare’s officers knew they were violating the law. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that Section 11 provides for strict liability and, therefore, the defendant’s state of mind is irrelevant. According to the appeals court, “Once a false statement has been made, a defendant’s knowledge is not relevant to a strict liability claim.”
The Supreme Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s decision, holding that the court’s holding “wrongly conflates facts and opinions.” Given that the lower court applied the incorrect legal standard, the Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court analyzed Section 11’s two clauses independently. With regard to statements of opinion, the Court clarified that a statement of opinion does not constitute an “untrue statement of . . . fact” simply because the stated opinion ultimately proves incorrect. Rather, the Court held that “a statement of opinion thus qualifies as an ‘untrue statement of . . . fact’ if that fact is untrue—i.e., if the opinion expressed was not sincerely held.”
As for the omissions clause, the Court held that Section 11 liability may arise if 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, reading the statement fairly and in context, would take from the statement.
“A reasonable investor may, depending on the circumstances, understand an opinion statement to convey facts about how the speaker has formed the opinion — or, otherwise put, about the speaker’s basis for holding that view,” Justice Elena Kagan explained. “And if the real facts are otherwise, but not provided, the opinion statement will mislead its audience.”
Because the lower courts failed to apply the correct legal standard to the plaintiff’s omissions claim, the Supreme Court remanded the case with the following instructions: “The court must review the Funds’ complaint to determine whether it adequately alleges that Omnicare omitted from the registration statement some specific fact that would have been material to a reasonable investor. If so, the court must decide whether the alleged omission rendered Omnicare’s opinion statements misleading in context.”
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!