United States: The Supreme Court's Omnicare Decision: Implications And Remaining Questions Regarding When Opinions Are Actionable Under The Federal Securities Laws

On March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, No. 13-435, 2015 WL 1291916 (Mar. 24, 2015). With some significant caveats (discussed below), the decision is largely protective of issuers: it enshrines the distinction between "opinions" and "facts," and generally makes it difficult to hold issuers liable for securities fraud based on statements of opinion.

In brief, the Court held that issuers that include opinions in a registration statement may be liable under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") for making an untrue statement of fact only when the issuer does not subjectively believe the stated opinion. In so holding, the Court rejected the Sixth Circuit's view that an honestly-held opinion that was at the time or later proved to be untrue could subject the issuer to liability. As the Court put it, Section 11 "is not, as the Court of Appeals and the [plaintiffs] would have it, an invitation to Monday morning quarterback an issuer's opinions."

However, the Court also held that an opinion, even if honestly believed, could be actionable if it misleads a "reasonable investor" as to the basis for the opinion due to the omission of material facts. That aspect of the Court's holding will most likely create substantial uncertainty regarding what a "reasonable investor" understands to be the implied basis for a particular opinion and potentially could lead lower courts to diverge in addressing that issue.

The Omnicare litigation arose out of a 2005 stock offering by Omnicare, Inc. ("Omnicare"), the nation's largest provider of pharmacy services for nursing home residents. See Omnicare, 2015 WL 1291916, at *4. Omnicare's registration statement for the offering included the following statements of opinion:

  • "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."
  • "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."

See id. at *4 (emphasis added).

Several years later, the Justice Department filed a civil False Claims Act suit against Omnicare alleging that the Company solicited and received millions of dollars in kickbacks from pharmaceutical manufacturers. Thereafter, certain pension funds (the "Funds") sued Omnicare and certain of its directors and officers under Section 11 based on allegations that the compliance-with-law opinions in Omnicare's registration statement were false and misleading. See Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., 2012 WL 462551 (E.D.Ky. Feb. 13, 2012).

The district court granted Omnicare's motion to dismiss, holding that "statements regarding a company's belief as to its legal compliance are considered 'soft' information" that is not actionable unless the speaker "knew [the statements] were untrue at the time." See Omnicare, 2015 WL 1291916, at *4. There were no allegations of intentional deception in the Funds' complaint (in fact, the complaint expressly disavowed any attempt to allege intent or scienter on the part of defendants, no doubt to avoid triggering Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)'s requirement to plead fraud "with particularity"). On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that it was sufficient for the Funds to allege that "the stated belief was 'objectively false'" irrespective of whether the issuer subjectively believed the opinion. Id. The Supreme Court granted Omnicare's writ of certiorari to decide when statements of opinion are actionable under Section 11 of the Securities Act.

Opinions Alleged To Be Misstatements of Fact: Writing for the Court, Justice Kagan[1] first addressed when a statement of opinion could constitute an "untrue statement of . . . material fact." See Omnicare, 2015 WL 1291916, at *5. The Court quickly brushed aside the Funds' argument (and the Sixth Circuit's holding) that subjective disbelief was not required as "conflating" facts and opinions: "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." Section 11 exposes issuers to liability not for "untrue statement[s]," but for "untrue statement[s] of . . . fact." Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. § 77k(a) (emphasis added)). The only "fact" typically implied in an opinion is "that the speaker actually holds the stated belief.[2]

Therefore, an opinion is actionable as a misstatement of fact under Section 11 only if the speaker actually does not believe the statement: "[A] sincere statement of pure opinion is not an 'untrue statement of material fact,' regardless whether an investor can ultimately prove that belief wrong." The Court illustrated the point: "If, for example, [a CEO] said 'I believe our marketing practices are lawful,' and actually did think that, [the CEO] could not be liable for a false statement of fact—even if [the CEO] afterward discovered a longtime violation of law." Because the Funds' complaint failed to plead that Omnicare did not actually hold the challenged opinions, they were not actionable as misstatements of fact under Section 11.

Opinions Alleged To Be Misleading Due To Omitted Information: Next, the Court addressed whether an opinion, "even if literally accurate" as honestly believed, may be actionable because the omission of "discrete factual representations" makes it "misleading to an ordinary investor." Much of this analysis was devoted to the expectations of a "reasonable investor." As a starting point, the Court observed that a reasonable person understands and takes into account the difference between statements of fact and opinion, particularly when found in a registration statement, "which the reasonable investor expects has been carefully worded to comply with the law. When reading such a document, the investor thus distinguishes between the sentences 'we believe X is true' and 'X is true.'" A reasonable investor, according to the Court, "grasps" that opinions lack certainty and are not "guarantees," and therefore, the omission of a fact that "merely rebuts" the opinion does not render it misleading.

On the other hand, the Court rejected Omnicare's argument that an opinion can never be actionable due to omitted material facts. Rather, a reasonable investor may, "depending on the circumstances, understand an opinion statement to convey facts about how the speaker formed the opinion—or, otherwise put, about the speaker's basis for holding that view. And if the real facts are otherwise, but not provided, the opinion statement will mislead its audience." The Court then proceeded to illustrate its point, and in the process highlighted the uncertainty now confronting issuers when they offer opinions in securities filings. Using the hypothetical statement "we believe our conduct is lawful," the Court explained what a reasonable investor might plausibly understand as to the basis for such an opinion:

  • The statement was made after consulting with a lawyer or, in the securities context, based on "meaningful legal inquiry;"
  • The opinion is consistent with "advice from regulators or consistent industry practice;"
  • There is no contrary legal advice; and/or
  • There is no knowledge that the "Federal Government was taking the opposite view."

The Court also offered additional guidance in stating that reasonable investors:

  • "understand that opinions sometimes rest on weighing competing facts," and therefore would not infer that "every fact known to an issuer supports its opinion statement[3]
  • consider the statement in context in light of "all its surrounding text, including hedges, disclaimers, and apparently conflicting information"; and
  • take into account industry customs and practices.

The Court discounted Omnicare's argument that the potential for liability based on misleading (but literally accurate) opinions threatens issuers with massive liability. The Court emphasized that an investor cannot state a claim by simply alleging that the issuer failed to reveal the basis for its opinion. Citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), the Court stated that a plaintiff "must identify particular (and material) facts going to the basis for the issuer's opinion—facts about the inquiry the issuer did or did not conduct or the knowledge it did or did not have—whose omission makes the opinion statement at issue misleading to a reasonable person reading the statement fairly and in context." To the Court, "that is no small task for an investor."

The Court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether a reasonable investor could have been misled as to the basis for Omnicare's opinions. [4]


In at least one sense, the impact of Omnicare is apparent: issuers and other participants in a public offering will not be liable for making untrue statements of fact under Section 11 for honestly-held opinions that turn out to be false. That ruling, in and of itself, offers significant protection to U.S. securities issuers. In other ways, however, the opinion raises a new set of questions, some of which will not be definitively answered for some time.

The Decision Generally Should Apply to Opinions Challenged Under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. While Omnicare involved statements of opinion challenged under Section 11 of the Securities Act, the decision should apply to opinions challenged under certain other federal securities law liability provisions, including Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The decision itself does not address the issue, nor does it expressly limit its holding to Section 11. In fact, the Court grappled at several points in the opinion with arguments based on its decision in Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg, 501 U.S. 1083 (1991), which addressed when statements of opinion are actionable under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act in the context of an allegedly misleading proxy solicitation. The Omnicare Court never raised the fact that Virginia Bankshares arose under Section 14(a) as a basis for distinguishing or otherwise dealing with that decision. We perceive no reason for applying a different framework for determining when statements of opinion are actionable under most other Securities or Exchange Act liability provisions, with the exception of Section 10(b). Because scienter is an essential element, it is difficult to perceive how an honestly held opinion could ever be actionable under Section 10(b) as misleading due to the omission of material facts.

Plaintiffs Confront A Difficult Dilemma In Attempting to Plead a Section 11 Claim Challenging an Opinion. The Fund plaintiffs in Omnicare chose not to plead (and expressly disavowed any allegations of) an intent to deceive on the part of defendants. That pleading technique avoids implicating the heightened pleading requirements in Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that fraud be pled with particularity. In this instance, however, it also doomed plaintiffs' claim that the challenged opinion constituted a misstatement of fact because, as the Court held, opinions typically imply only the fact that the speaker believes the opinion. Going forward, issuers and their counsel may benefit from plaintiffs having to choose, in challenging an opinion, between pleading subjective disbelief (thereby triggering Rule 9(b)), or omitting such an allegation and forfeiting a claim that an opinion is false (other than as lacking a reasonable basis).

The Court's Reference to Iqbal Reinforces That Conclusory Assertions Are Insufficient To Survive a Motion to Dismiss. Recognizing that Section 11 is not a "general disclosure requirement," the Court emphasized that to adequately plead that an opinion is misleading, an investor "cannot simply say that the issuer failed to reveal its basis." Instead, it must plead—with more than conclusory statements—the omission of a material fact that renders the opinion misleading. While not breaking new ground, the Court's statement, made in the context of rejecting Omnicare's concerns about the "breadth of liability," reinforces the vitality of Bell Atlantic, Inc. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), Iqbal, and their progeny in requiring plaintiffs to plead "plausible" claims for relief.

There Could Be Significant Uncertainty Regarding When an Opinion Has a Reasonable Basis.On the other hand, by adopting a test that looks to a reasonable investor's understanding, the Court has injected significant uncertainty into how lower courts will assess when an opinion is misleading. Courts almost certainly will have different views on what reasonable investors would understand as the basis for a particular opinion; the Court's reference to industry customs and norms opens the door to a battle of the experts on those issues; and the Court's emphasis on the context for the opinion begs the question of what the relevant context is and how it informs a reasonable investor's understanding of the opinion. In short, the Court has created a test that very well may be rife with factual disputes, possibly making it difficult (notwithstanding Twombly and Iqbal) for an issuer to succeed on a motion to dismiss at the outset of the litigation.

For a copy of the decision, please click here.


[1] Justice Kagan's opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito and Sotomayor. Justices Scalia and Thomas issued separate concurring opinions.

[2] Justice Kagan acknowledged that a statement beginning with "I believe" could contain "embedded statements of fact," using the example "I believe our TVs have the highest resolution available because we use a patented technology to which our competitors do not have access." See Omnicare, 2015 WL 1291916, at *6 (emphasis added). The italicized portion of that quotation is a fact, not a statement of opinion.

[3] As an illustration, the Court stated that an issuer would be justified in not disclosing that a single junior attorney "expressed doubts about a practice's legality when six of his more senior colleagues gave the stamp of approval."

[4] In his concurring opinion, Justice Scalia took issue with the Court's holding that a reasonable investor "is right to expect a reasonable basis for all opinions in registration statements" on the ground that it unreasonably presumes "expertise on all topics volunteered within a registration statement." Justice Scalia suggested that the test adopted by the Court "invites roundabout attacks upon expressions of opinion" that turn out to be wrong based on allegations that the speaker's basis was not "objectively adequate," even if the speaker subjectively believed he or she had an adequate basis for the opinion. Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion, stated that the Court should not have opined on the question of "whether and under what circumstances an omission may make a statement of opinion misleading" because it was not ruled on by the courts below.

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.

In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.