ARTICLE
18 November 2014

Supreme Court May Reject Argument That Opinion Statements Are Actionable Simply Because False

PR
Proskauer Rose LLP

Contributor

The world’s leading organizations and global players choose Proskauer to represent them when they need it the most. Our top tier team of star trial attorneys, acclaimed transactional lawyers and exceptionally talented partners and associates have earned a reputation for the relentless pursuit of perfection and a dauntless pursuit of success.
During oral arguments in Omnicare v. Laborers District Council last week, the Supreme Court appeared to signal a rejection of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ position that a sincerely held statement of opinion or belief may be actionable under the Securities Act of 1933 simply because it was incorrect.
United States Corporate/Commercial Law

During oral arguments in Omnicare v. Laborers District Council last week, the Supreme Court appeared to signal a rejection of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' position that a sincerely held statement of opinion or belief may be actionable under the Securities Act of 1933 simply because it was incorrect. The case concerns statements such as Omnicare Inc.'s disclosure that "we believe that our contractual arrangements with pharmaceutical manufacturers are legally and economically valid arrangements that bring value to the healthcare system and patients that we serve." The plaintiffs contend the disclosure was inaccurate because it was made after the company had been named in whistleblower lawsuits alleging that Omnicare had received kickbacks from drug companies and had submitted false claims to the government. Proskauer's co-head of Securities Litigation Jonathan E. Richman spoke about the oral argument with:

We will continue to provide updates on this case.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More