United States: Supreme Court Applies "Reasonable" Basis Standard In Clarifying Liability For Statements Of Opinion

On March 24, 2015 the Supreme Court released its much-anticipated opinion in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund,1 holding that statements of opinion in issuers' registration statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can form the basis for liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, only if the speaker lacked any reasonable basis in fact for the opinion.  The Court's decision resolves a split of authority between the circuit courts of appeal, and provides guidance on an issue that increasingly is an aspect of securities litigation.  Beyond providing an answer to the circuit split, the Court's discussion of what does not constitute a "reasonable basis" is useful as that concept frequently arises in securities litigation but seldom has been addressed by the Court.  Thus, analysis of the Court's Omnicare decision is useful for the guidance it offers companies and their executives when making statements of opinion in securities filings.

Background of the Case

Based in Cincinnati, Ohio, Omnicare is the top U.S. provider of pharmacy services to long-term care facilities in the U.S. and Canada.  In December 2005, the company issued public stock totaling $765 million, which required it to file a registration statement with the SEC.  The case stems from that registration statement, and the issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether the company could be liable for two opinion statements in that registration statement that turned out later to be incorrect:

  • "We believe our contract arrangements with other healthcare providers, our pharmaceutical suppliers and our pharmacy practices are in compliance with applicable federal and state laws;" and
  • "We believe that our contracts with pharmaceutical manufacturers are legally and economically valid arrangements that bring value to the healthcare system and the patients that we serve."2

Those statements were accompanied by additional disclosures:  On the same page as the first statement above, Omnicare disclosed that several states had initiated "enforcement actions against pharmaceutical manufacturers" for offering payments to pharmacies that dispensed their products, and that the laws related to those payments might "be interpreted in the future in a manner inconsistent with our interpretation and application."3   Next to the second statement above, Omnicare disclosed that the U.S. government had expressed "significant concerns" about some manufacturers' rebates to pharmacies and that business might be adversely impacted "if these price concessions were no longer provided."4

Omnicare later was sued in two qui tam (whistleblower) actions over alleged violations of federal anti-kickback laws, and reached a $124 million settlement of those claims with the U.S. Department of Justice.5  Following the settlement, the plaintiffs filed suit, asserting, among other claims, that Omnicare's two statements opining about its legal compliance were actionable under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, which imposes near strict liability for all issuers, directors, officers, underwriters, and experts for material misstatements or omissions in a registration statement.6   The plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare's officers and directors lacked "reasonable grounds" for believing that the opinions offered were truthful and complete, and that one of Omnicare's in-house lawyers had warned that a particular contract "carrie[d] a heightened risk" of violating federal anti-kickback laws.7

The federal district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, holding that the statements at issue were opinions, or "soft information" in the court's words, which were actionable "only if those who made them 'knew [they] were untrue at the time'" the statements were made.8   The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that a plaintiff could state a violation of Section 11 of the 1933 Act by alleging that a statement of opinion in a registration statement was objectively false, without regard for whether the speaker honestly held the opinion.9

In holding that plaintiffs need not allege opinion statements were "disbelieved at the time [they] were expressed,"10  the Sixth Circuit acknowledged it was creating a split of authority with other circuits to have considered the issue.  Prior to the Sixth Circuit's 2013 decision in Omnicare, the leading case in conflict with the Sixth Circuit's Omnicare decision was the Second Circuit's decision in Fait v. Regions Financial Corp., which held that when a plaintiff asserts a claim under Section 11 "based upon a belief or opinion ... liability lies only to the extent that the statement was both objectively and subjectively false and disbelieved by the defendant at the time it was expressed."11  The Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits all appeared to agree with the Second Circuit's Fait holding.12

The Supreme Court's Opinion

The Court divided its consideration of liability for opinion statements under Section 11 into two parts: liability for Omnicare's allegedly untrue statements of material fact in stating its opinion as to its compliance with the law, and liability for alleged omissions of material fact necessary to make Omnicare's statements of opinion as to its compliance with the law not misleading.13

As to when statements of opinion are actionable as misstatements of material fact, the Court first rejected the plaintiffs argument, and the Sixth Circuit's holding, that a statement of opinion "ultimately found incorrect—even if believed at the time made—may count as an untrue statement of a material fact."14   The Court stated that that standard "conflate[d] facts and opinions," went against the common sense understanding of statements prefaced by words such as "I believe" or "I think," and improperly extended the statutory language of Section 11, which does not impose liability for "untrue statements full stop (which would have included one of opinion), but only for untrue statements of material ... fact."15

But, the Court held that some types of opinion statements could subject issuers and executives to Section 11 liability.  The Court noted that every statement of opinion expresses a statement of fact that the speaker actually holds the opinion being expressed.  Thus, if a plaintiff could demonstrate the speaker did not actually believe the opinion expressed, then Section 11 would impose liability if the statement of opinion was false and material under the securities laws.16  The Court also recognized a situation in which a statement of opinion also supplied a statement of supporting fact for the opinion; in that situation, the speaker has stated both the fact of belief in the opinion and the underlying fact, and could be liable under Section 11 not only if the belief professed was not honestly held but also if the supporting fact supplied was untrue.17

As to the two statements by Omnicare, the Court held neither could be the basis for Section 11 liability as misstatements of material fact because they were "pure statements of opinion" and plaintiffs "[did] not contest that Omnicare's opinion was honestly held."18

As to when statements of opinion may be actionable for omitting material facts necessary to make the opinion statements not misleading—the other prong of potential liability under Section 11—the Court scoffed at the idea that "no reasonable person, in any context, can understand a pure statement of opinion to convey anything more than a speaker's own mindset ....[and thus that] as long as an opinion is sincerely held ... it cannot mislead as to any matter[.]"19  The Court held that such a reading is incorrect because "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."20  The Court held that taking the view that statements of opinion could never be actionable would allow companies to immunize any statement from Section 11 liability simply by prefacing it with words such as "we think" or "we believe."21

The Court held that liability for opinions based on alleged omissions of material fact arises only "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 would take from the statement itself."22   In other words, courts must consider "the foundation [an investor] would expect an issuer to have before making the [opinion] statement."23  The Court recognized that companies form business opinions based on a weighing of competing facts, and that the presence of competing facts may be the very reason a company frames a statement as an opinion rather than as a certainty.24  "A reasonable investor does not expect that every fact known to an issuer supports its opinion statements."25

As to the two statements by Omnicare, the Court held further analysis by the lower courts was necessary to determine whether the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged facts in support of a theory that Omnicare failed to state facts that, because omitted, rendered Omnicare's opinion statements misleading because the omitted fact would "show that Omnicare lacked the basis for making those statements that a reasonable investor would expect."26

Omnicare in Broader Context

Though the Court sent the case back to the lower courts for further consideration, and thus did not rule in Omnicare's favor outright, the Court's decision limits the scope of liability companies can face from investors in similar suits.  Moreover, from a close reading of the Court's discussion of the need to consider alleged statements of opinion in the full context of the "surrounding text, including hedges, disclaimers, and apparently conflicting information" in the registration statement, as well as consideration of "the customs and practices of the relevant industry," it is not clear that the plaintiffs' suit against Omnicare will survive re-consideration by the lower courts.  The Court noted more than once in its opinion that Omnicare made additional disclosures in close proximity to both of the alleged misstatements of opinion and that those additional disclosures presented facts providing a contrary view to Omnicare's expression of confidence in its legal compliance.27

Notably, the Court's examples of what would not constitute a reasonable basis for a company's opinion statements provides some insight into what companies can and should do to ensure its opinions are not open to easy attack in securities litigation. In the context of statements by a company opining about its legal compliance—at issue in Omnicare—the Court suggested that potential pitfalls include offering an opinion without consulting a lawyer or contrary to the advice of a lawyer of sufficient experience and expertise, or with knowledge that regulators take an opposite view on the issue about which the company is opining.28  On the other hand, the Court suggested that in some situations, reliance on advice from regulators or consistent industry practice in an area might provide the kind of basis for an opinion a reasonable investor would expect.29  In the context of statements of opinion about the relative value of a company's products compared with its competition, the Court suggested potential pitfalls include a failure to review competitors' product specifications or information by industry analysts indicating that a competitor's product, in particular a new one, was better than the speaker's product.30  Ultimately, the Court noted, "to avoid exposure for omissions under [Section 11], an issuer need only divulge an opinion's basis, or else make clear the real tentativeness of its belief."31

Only subsequent decisions by lower federal courts will tell what impact the Supreme Court's decision will have on the securities litigation landscape.  In the end, close examination of the Court's opinion provides good reason for companies and their executives to be hopeful that the Omnicare opinion will in fact limit the scope of liability for opinion statements, and will provide plenty of room for companies to sell securities without filling their registration statements with immaterial information presenting conflicting views from inside or outside their company.  The Court reaffirmed the longstanding principle that a reasonable investor reads statements of opinion in SEC filings not "in a vacuum" but "in a broader frame" that includes all of the disclosures made in the filing, as well as publicly known industry practice.32  And the Court reiterated the stringent standard plaintiffs will be required to meet in alleging that a company or its executives should be liable for statements of opinion that, according to the plaintiffs, omit material facts: the plaintiff cannot simply allege that an opinion was wrong, but must call into question the speaker's basis for offering the opinion; the plaintiff cannot simply allege that the speaker failed to reveal the basis for the opinion; and the plaintiff cannot rely on conclusory assertions that the issuer omitted material facts.  Rather, the Court held, the plaintiff must "identify particular (and material) facts going to the basis for the issuer's opinion ... whose omission makes the opinion statement at issue misleading to a reasonable person reading the statement fairly and in context.  That is no small task for an investor."33

1 No. 13-435, 575 U.S. ____ (2015), available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/14.
2 Omnicare, Slip Op. at 3.  Because Omnicare was already publicly traded, the registration statement it filed was a streamlined version called a Form S-3, which permitted it to offer additional stock to the public by relying on the disclosures it already had made in its annual and periodic SEC reports.  The two statements at issue in the case were contained in Omnicare's pre-December 2005 SEC filings, and only incorporated by reference in the streamlined S-3 registration statement the company filed in connection with the December 2005 offering.  The fact that the two statements were contained in earlier filings and incorporated by reference into Omnicare's registration statement makes no difference for liability under the Securities Act of 1933.
3 Omnicare, Slip Op. at 3.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 3–4.
6 15 U.S.C. § 77k(a); Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 381–82 (1983); J&R Marketing, SEP v. General Motors Corp., 549 F.3d 384, 390 (6th Cir. 2008).
7 Omnicare, Slip Op. at 3–4.
8 Omnicare, Slip Op. at 4; Ind. State Dist. Council v. Omnicare, Inc., No. 2006-CV-26, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17526, at *14–16 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 13, 2012). 
9 Ind. State Dist. Council v. Omnicare, Inc., 719 F.3d at 503, 506–07 (6th Cir. 2013).
10 Id. at 506.
11 655 F.3d 105, 110 (2d Cir. 2011).
12 See Rubke v. Capital Bancorp Ltd., 551 F.3d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding allegedly misleading opinions "can give rise to a claim under Section 11 only if the complaint alleges with particularity that the statements were both objectively and subjectively false or misleading."); Nolte v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 390 F.3d 311, 315 (4th Cir. 2004) ("[A] statement of opinion may be a false factual statement if the statement is false, disbelieved by its maker, and related to matters of fact which can be verified by objective evidence."); Greenberg v. Crossroads Sys., 364 F.3d 657, 670 (5th Cir. 2004) ("A statement of belief is only open to objection where the evidence shows that the speaker did not in fact hold that belief and that statement made asserted something false or misleading about the subject matter.").  Many securities lawyers also believed the Third Circuit sided with the reasoning in Fait, based on a 1993 decision in which the Third Circuit stated that "opinions, predictions and other forward-looking statements of 'soft information' may be actionable misrepresentations if the speaker does not genuinely and reasonably believe them."  In re Donald Trump Casino Sec. Litig., 7 F.3d 357 (3d Cir. 1993).  The Tenth Circuit considered the issue last year, but declined to adopt a specific position, holding in the case before it that the plaintiffs' allegations failed under any approach.  MHC Mut. Conversion Fund, L.P. v. Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P., 761 F.3d 1109, 1110 (10th Cir. 2014).
13 Omnicare, Slip Op. at 4–5.
14 Id. at 6 (internal quotations omitted).
15 Id. at 6–7 (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
16 Id. at 7–8.  The Court observed in a footnotes that statements of opinion not honestly believed by the speaker, but that ultimately turned out to be true, would not be actionable under Section 11.  Id. at Slip Op. 8 n.2.
17 Id. at 8–9.
18 Id. at 9.
19 Id. at 10.
20 Id. at 11. 
21 Id. at 16.
22 Id. at 12.
23 Id. at 17.
24 Id. at 13.
25 Id. (emphasis in original).
26 Id. at 19–20.
27 Id. at 3 & 20.
28 Id. at 12 & 20.
29 Id. at 12 n.5.
30 Id. at 12 n.6.
31 Id. at 19.
32 Id. at 14.
33 Id. at 18.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Michael T. Leigh
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions