Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund
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 Elena Kagan on Mar 24, 2015. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
Recommended Citation: Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/omnicare-inc-v-laborers-district-council-construction-industry-pension-fund/