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]

Takeaways

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.

Footnotes

[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.

Authors
Events from this Firm
22 Aug 2018, Webinar, New York, United States

On July 1, 2018, new regulations from California’s FEHC went into effect, clarifying protections from national origin discrimination.

5 Sep 2018, Seminar, New York, United States

This seminar will discuss a variety of topics concerning the responsibilities and conduct of gatekeepers and will provide practical advice dealing with the government’s increased policing of the activities of gatekeepers.

13 Sep 2018, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

Employment partners Tim Long and Erin Connell will be participating in PLI’s Cutting-Edge Employment Law Issues 2018: The California Difference.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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