October Term 2014 · Docket 13-435

Does a belief statement require proof of underlying facts?

Investors sue over false beliefs in a prospectus. The company argues only the belief matters.

Official caption
Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Industry Pension Fund
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    The company's lawyer argued that Section 11 covers only material facts.

    The investors' lawyer argued that opinions frequently imply underlying facts.

    The Solicitor General argued for a middle ground between the two positions.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests Section 11 of the Securities Act. It asks if opinion statements need factual support.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 3, 2014.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The company wants a ruling that belief statements are not actionable.

The investors want a ruling that belief statements require factual proof.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The company argues that only the existence of the belief is a fact.

The investors argue that opinions imply underlying facts that must be true.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked if lack of investigation proves a speaker did not believe their statement.

Justice Breyer asked why an issuer's opinion does not imply they investigated the facts.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of liability for corporate statements. It determines how investors prove fraud in securities offerings.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON