|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-435||6th Cir.||Nov 3, 2014||Mar 24, 2015||9-0||Kagan||OT 2014|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.
Holding: For purposes of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, which allows a purchaser of securities to sue an issuer of a registration statement if the registration statement 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,” a statement of opinion does not constitute an “untrue statement of fact” simply because the stated opinion ultimately proves incorrect. And 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 itself, then Section 11’s omissions clause creates liability.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on March 24, 2015. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 4 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 7, 2013)|
|Nov 4 2013||Waiver of right of respondents Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, et al. to respond filed.|
|Nov 20 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 6, 2013.|
|Nov 21 2013||Response Requested . (Due December 23, 2013)|
|Dec 16 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 9, 2014.|
|Jan 9 2014||Brief of respondents Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Jan 28 2014||Reply of petitioners Omnicare, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Jan 29 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 21, 2014.|
|Feb 24 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 28, 2014.|
|Mar 3 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Mar 28 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Mar 28 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.|
|Mar 31 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 5, 2014.|
|Mar 31 2014||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 25, 2014.|
|Jun 5 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jun 5 2014||Brief of petitioners Omnicare, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Jun 12 2014||Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and Business Roundtable filed.|
|Jun 12 2014||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.|
|Jun 12 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.|
|Jun 12 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association filed.|
|Jun 12 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Center for Audit Quality filed.|
|Aug 25 2014||Brief of respondents Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, et al. filed.|
|Aug 28 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Occupy the SEC filed.|
|Aug 29 2014||Brief amicus curiae of AARP filed.|
|Aug 29 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Sep 2 2014||Brief amici curiae of Common Law Scholars filed.|
|Sep 2 2014||Brief amici curiae of Wyoming Retirement System, et al. filed.|
|Sep 2 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen, Inc. filed.|
|Sep 2 2014||Brief amici curiae of Professors at Law and Business Schools filed.|
|Sep 2 2014||Brief amici curiae of Institutional Investors filed.|
|Sep 2 2014||Response of petitioners' to motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument.|
|Sep 4 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, November 3, 2014.|
|Sep 8 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. for 6th Circuit.|
|Sep 15 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, this record is electronic.|
|Sep 16 2014||Record received from U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Kentucky. This record is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Sep 19 2014||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 24 2014||Reply of petitioners Omnicare, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 2 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. The time is to be divided as follows: 30 minutes for the petitioners, 20 minutes for the respondents, and 10 minutes for the Solicitor General.|
|Nov 3 2014||Argued. For petitioners: Kannon K. Shanmugam, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Thomas C. Goldstein, Bethesda, Md.; and Nicole A. Saharsky, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Mar 24 2015||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.|
|Apr 27 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.