In its seminal 2015 Omnicare decision—the leading recent U.S. Supreme Court guidance concerning when statements of opinion may be actionable under U.S. securities law—the court articulated standards for determining, among other things, whether opinion statements “may be rendered misleading by the omission of discrete factual representations.”1 The court held that “whether an omission makes an expression of opinion misleading always depends on context,” stressing that “an omission that renders misleading a statement of opinion when viewed in a vacuum may not do so once that statement is considered, as is appropriate, in a broader frame.”2
The court pointed to three considerations as relevant in determining whether in context an opinion statement is misleading: (1) the type of document containing the statement in question;3 (2) the “surrounding text, including hedges, disclaimers, and apparently conflicting information”;4 and (3) the “customs and practices of the relevant industry.”5 The court provided no further guidance concerning how these considerations should be applied or how heavily they should be weighed.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
