(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 

Syllabus 

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. 

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

OMNICARE, INC., ET AL. v. LABORERS DISTRICT 

COUNCIL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY PENSION 

FUND ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

No. 13–435. Argued November 3, 2014—Decided March 24, 2015 

The Securities Act of 1933 requires that a company wishing to issue

securities must first file a registration statement containing specified

information about the issuing company and the securities offered.

See 15 U. S. C. §§77g, 77aa. The registration statement may also include other representations of fact or opinion. To protect investors 

and promote compliance with these disclosure requirements, §11 of

the Act creates two ways to hold issuers liable for a registration

statement’s contents: A purchaser of securities may sue an issuer 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.” §77k(a). In either 

case, the buyer need not prove that the issuer acted with any intent

to deceive or defraud. Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U. S. 

375, 381–382. 

Petitioner Omnicare, a pharmacy services company, filed a registration statement in connection with a public offering of common 

stock. In addition to the required disclosures, the registration statement contained two statements expressing the company’s opinion 

that it was in compliance with federal and state laws. After the Federal Government filed suit against Omnicare for allegedly receiving

kickbacks from pharmaceutical manufacturers, respondents, pension

funds that purchased Omnicare stock (hereinafter Funds), sued Omnicare under §11. They claimed that Omnicare’s legal-compliance 

statements constituted “untrue statement[s] of . . . material fact” and

that Omnicare “omitted to state [material] facts necessary” to make

those statements not misleading. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2 OMNICARE, INC. v. LABORERS DIST. COUNCIL 

CONSTR. INDUSTRY PENSION FUND 

Syllabus
 

The District Court granted Omnicare’s motion to dismiss. Because 

the Funds had not alleged that Omnicare’s officers knew they were

violating the law, the court found that the Funds had failed to state a

§11 claim. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Acknowledging that the

statements at issue expressed opinions, the court held that no showing of subjective disbelief was required. In the court’s view, the 

Funds’ allegations that Omnicare’s legal-compliance opinions were

objectively false sufficed to support their claim.

Held: 

1. A statement of opinion does not constitute an “untrue statement

of . . . fact” simply because the stated opinion ultimately proves incorrect. The Sixth Circuit’s contrary holding wrongly conflates facts and 

opinions. A statement of fact expresses certainty about a thing,

whereas a statement of opinion conveys only an uncertain view as to

that thing. Section 11 incorporates that distinction in its first clause

by exposing issuers to liability only for “untrue statement[s] of . . . 

fact.” §77k(a) (emphasis added). Because a statement of opinion admits the possibility of error, such a statement remains true—and

thus is not an “untrue statement of . . . fact”—even if the opinion 

turns out to have been wrong.

But opinion statements are not wholly immune from liability under 

§11’s first clause. Every such statement explicitly affirms one fact:

that the speaker actually holds the stated belief. A statement of 

opinion thus qualifies as an “untrue statement of . . . fact” if that fact 

is untrue—i.e., if the opinion expressed was not sincerely held. In 

addition, opinion statements can give rise to false-statement liability

under §11 if they contain embedded statements of untrue facts.

Here, however, Omnicare’s sincerity is not contested and the statements at issue are pure opinion statements. The Funds thus cannot 

establish liability under §11’s first clause. Pp. 6–10.

2. 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 §11’s omissions clause creates liability. Pp. 10–20. 

(a) For purposes of §11’s omissions clause, whether a statement 

is “misleading” is an objective inquiry that depends on a reasonable

investor’s perspective. Cf. TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 

U. S. 438, 445. Omnicare goes too far by claiming that no reasonable

person, in any context, can understand a statement of opinion to convey anything more than the speaker’s own mindset. A reasonable investor may, depending on the circumstances, understand an opinion 

statement to convey facts about the speaker’s basis for holding that 

view. Specifically, an issuer’s statement of opinion may fairly imply 
 

 

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 3 

Syllabus 

facts about the inquiry the issuer conducted or the knowledge it had. 

And if the real facts are otherwise, but not provided, the opinion

statement will mislead by omission. 

An opinion statement, however, is not misleading simply because 

the issuer knows, but fails to disclose, some fact cutting the other 

way. A reasonable investor does not expect that every fact known to

an issuer supports its opinion statement. Moreover, whether an 

omission makes an expression of opinion misleading always depends 

on context. Reasonable investors understand opinion statements in

light of the surrounding text, and §11 creates liability only for the

omission of material facts that cannot be squared with a fair reading

of the registration statement as a whole. Omnicare’s arguments to

the contrary are unavailing. Pp. 10–19.

(b) Because neither court below considered the Funds’ omissions 

theory under the right standard, this case is remanded for a determination of whether the Funds have stated a viable omissions claim. 

On remand, the court must review the Funds’ complaint to determine

whether it adequately alleges that Omnicare omitted from the registration statement some specific fact that would have been material to

a reasonable investor. If so, the court must decide whether the alleged omission rendered Omnicare’s opinion statements misleading

in context. Pp. 19–20. 

719 F. 3d 498, vacated and 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. 
 

 

_________________ 

_________________ 

 

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 13–435 

OMNICARE, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. LABORERS
 

DISTRICT COUNCIL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY 

PENSION FUND ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
 

[March 24, 2015]

 JUSTICE KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court. 

Before a company may sell securities in interstate commerce, it must file a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). If that document 

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 purchaser of the

stock may sue for damages. 15 U. S. C. §77k(a). This case 

requires us to decide how each of those phrases applies to

statements of opinion. 

I 

The Securities Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 74, 15 U. S. C. §77a 

et seq., protects investors by ensuring that companies

issuing securities (known as “issuers”) make a “full and 

fair disclosure of information” relevant to a public offering. 

Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U. S. 622, 646 (1988). The linchpin of 

the Act is its registration requirement. With limited 

exceptions not relevant here, an issuer may offer securities to the public only after filing a registration statement. 

See §§77d, 77e. That statement must contain specified 
 

2 OMNICARE, INC. v. LABORERS DIST. COUNCIL 

CONSTR. INDUSTRY PENSION FUND 

Opinion of the Court 

information about both the company itself and the security

for sale. See §§77g, 77aa. Beyond those required disclosures, the issuer may include additional representations of 

either fact or opinion.

Section 11 of the Act promotes compliance with these

disclosure provisions by giving purchasers a right of action

against an issuer or designated individuals (directors,

partners, underwriters, and so forth) for material misstatements or omissions in registration statements. As 

relevant here, that section provides: 

“In case any part of the registration statement, when 

such part became effective, contained an untrue

statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to 

make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring such security . . . [may] sue.” §77k(a). 

Section 11 thus creates two ways to hold issuers liable for 

the contents of a registration statement—one focusing on

what the statement says and the other on what it leaves 

out. Either way, the buyer need not prove (as he must to 

establish certain other securities offenses) that the defendant acted with any intent to deceive or defraud. 

Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U. S. 375, 381– 

382 (1983).

This case arises out of a registration statement that

petitioner Omnicare filed in connection with a public

offering of common stock. Omnicare is the nation’s largest 

provider of pharmacy services for residents of nursing

homes. Its registration statement contained (along with 

all mandated disclosures) analysis of the effects of various

federal and state laws on its business model, including its

acceptance of rebates from pharmaceutical manufacturers.

See, e.g., App. 88–107, 132–140, 154–166. Of significance

here, two sentences in the registration statement expressed Omnicare’s view of its compliance with legal 
Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 3 

Opinion of the Court 

requirements: 

 “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.” Id., at 95. 

 “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.” Id., at 137. 

Accompanying those legal opinions were some caveats. On 

the same page as the first statement above, Omnicare

mentioned several state-initiated “enforcement actions 

against pharmaceutical manufacturers” for offering payments to pharmacies that dispensed their products; it then

cautioned that the laws relating to that practice might “be

interpreted in the future in a manner inconsistent with 

our interpretation and application.” Id., at 96. And adjacent to the second statement, Omnicare noted that the 

Federal Government had expressed “significant concerns” 

about some manufacturers’ rebates to pharmacies and 

warned that business might suffer “if these price concessions were no longer provided.” Id., at 136–137. 

Respondents here, pension funds that purchased Omnicare stock in the public offering (hereinafter Funds),

brought suit alleging that the company’s two opinion 

statements about legal compliance give rise to liability 

under §11. Citing lawsuits that the Federal Government

later pressed against Omnicare, the Funds’ complaint

maintained that the company’s receipt of payments from 

drug manufacturers violated anti-kickback laws. See id., 

at 181–186, 203–226. Accordingly, the complaint asserted, 

Omnicare made “materially false” representations about 

legal compliance. Id., at 274. And so too, the complaint 

continued, the company “omitted to state [material] facts 

necessary” to make its representations not misleading. 
 

4 OMNICARE, INC. v. LABORERS DIST. COUNCIL 

CONSTR. INDUSTRY PENSION FUND 

Opinion of the Court 

Id., at 273. The Funds claimed that none of Omnicare’s 

officers and directors “possessed reasonable grounds” for

thinking that the opinions offered were truthful and complete. Id., at 274. Indeed, the complaint noted that one of

Omnicare’s attorneys had warned that a particular contract “carrie[d] a heightened risk” of liability under antikickback laws. Id., at 225 (emphasis deleted). At the 

same time, the Funds made clear that in light of §11’s

strict liability standard, they chose to “exclude and disclaim any allegation that could be construed as alleging 

fraud or intentional or reckless misconduct.” Id., at 273. 

The District Court granted Omnicare’s motion to dismiss. See Civ. No. 2006–26 (ED Ky., Feb. 13, 2012), App.

to Pet. for Cert. 28a, 38a–40a, 2012 WL 462551, *4–*5. In 

the court’s view, “statements regarding a company’s belief

as to its legal compliance are considered ‘soft’ information” 

and are actionable only if those who made them “knew 

[they] were untrue at the time.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 38a. 

The court concluded that the Funds’ complaint failed to

meet that standard because it nowhere claimed that “the 

company’s officers knew they were violating the law.” Id., 

at 39a. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. See 719 F. 3d 498 (2013). It acknowledged that 

the two statements highlighted in the Funds’ complaint

expressed Omnicare’s “opinion” of legal compliance, rather

than “hard facts.” Id., at 504 (quoting In re Sofamor 

Danek Group Inc., 123 F. 3d 394, 401–402 (CA6 1997)).

But even so, the court held, the Funds had to allege only 

that the stated belief was “objectively false”; they did not 

need to contend that anyone at Omnicare “disbelieved [the 

opinion] at the time it was expressed.” 719 F. 3d, at 506 

(quoting Fait v. Regions Financial Corp., 655 F. 3d 105, 

110 (CA2 2011)).

We granted certiorari, 571 U. S. ___ (2014), to consider 

how §11 pertains to statements of opinion. We do so in 

two steps, corresponding to the two parts of §11 and the 
Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 5 

Opinion of the Court 

two theories in the Funds’ complaint. We initially address

the Funds’ claim that Omnicare made “untrue statement[s] of . . . material fact” in offering its views on legal 

compliance. §77k(a); see App. 273–274. We then take up

the Funds’ argument that Omnicare “omitted to state a

material fact . . . necessary to make the statements [in its 

registration filing] not misleading.” §77k(a); see App.

273–274. Unlike both courts below, we see those allegations as presenting different issues.1 In resolving the first,

we discuss when an opinion itself constitutes a factual

misstatement. In analyzing the second, we address when

an opinion may be rendered misleading by the omission of 

discrete factual representations. Because we find that the 

Court of Appeals applied the wrong standard, we vacate 

its decision. 

—————— 

1 In his concurrence, JUSTICE THOMAS contends that the lower courts’ 

erroneous conflation of these two questions should limit the scope of our 

review: We should say nothing about omissions, he maintains, because

that issue was not pressed or passed on below. We disagree. Although

the Funds could have written a clearer complaint, they raised a discrete

omissions claim. See, e.g., App. 191 (“[T]he Company’s 2005 Registration Statement . . . omitted material information that was . . . necessary

to make the Registration Statement not misleading”); id., at 273 (“The 

Registration Statement . . . omitted to state facts necessary to make the

statements made not misleading, and failed to adequately disclose

material facts as described above”). The lower courts chose not to 

address that claim separately, but understood that the complaint 

alleged not only misstatements but also omissions. See App. to Pet. for 

Cert. 38a (describing the Funds’ claims as relating to “misstatements/omissions” and dismissing the lot as “not actionable”); 719 F. 3d,

at 501 (giving a single rationale for reversing the District Court’s 

dismissal of the Funds’ claims “for material misstatements and omissions”). And the omissions issue was the crux of the parties’ dispute 

before this Court. The question was fully briefed by both parties (plus

the Solicitor General), and omissions played a starring role at oral 

argument. Neither in its briefs nor at argument did Omnicare ever

object that the Funds’ omissions theory had been forfeited or was not 

properly before this Court. We therefore see no reason to ignore the 

issue. 
 

 

6 OMNICARE, INC. v. LABORERS DIST. COUNCIL 

CONSTR. INDUSTRY PENSION FUND 

Opinion of the Court 

II 

The Sixth Circuit held, and the Funds now urge, that a

statement of opinion that is ultimately found incorrect—

even if believed at the time made—may count as an “untrue statement of a material fact.” 15 U. S. C §77k(a); see 

719 F. 3d, at 505; Brief for Respondents 20–26. As the 

Funds put the point, a statement of belief may make an 

implicit assertion about the belief ’s “subject matter”: To

say “we believe X is true” is often to indicate that “X is in 

fact true.” Id., at 23; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 36. In just that

way, the Funds conclude, an issuer’s statement that “we

believe we are following the law” conveys that “we in fact

are following the law”—which is “materially false,” no

matter what the issuer thinks, if instead it is violating an 

anti-kickback statute. Brief for Respondents 1.

But that argument wrongly conflates facts and opinions.

A fact is “a thing done or existing” or “[a]n actual happening.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 782 (1927).

An opinion is “a belief[,] a view,” or a “sentiment which the 

mind forms of persons or things.” Id., at 1509. Most 

important, 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. See ibid. (“An opinion, in ordinary usage . . . does not imply . . . definiteness

. . . or certainty”); 7 Oxford English Dictionary 151 (1933) 

(an opinion “rests[s] on grounds insufficient for complete

demonstration”). Indeed, that difference between the two 

is so ingrained in our everyday ways of speaking and 

thinking as to make resort to old dictionaries seem a mite

silly. And Congress effectively incorporated just that 

distinction in §11’s first part by exposing issuers to liability not for “untrue statement[s]” full stop (which would

have included ones of opinion), but only for “untrue statement[s] of . . . fact.” §77k(a) (emphasis added). 

Consider that statutory phrase’s application to two

hypothetical statements, couched in ways the Funds claim 
 

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 7 

Opinion of the Court 

are equivalent. A company’s CEO states: “The TVs we

manufacture have the highest resolution available on the 

market.” Or, alternatively, the CEO transforms that 

factual statement into one of opinion: “I believe” (or “I

think”) “the TVs we manufacture have the highest resolution available on the market.” The first version would be 

an untrue statement of fact if a competitor had introduced

a higher resolution TV a month before—even assuming

the CEO had not yet learned of the new product. The 

CEO’s assertion, after all, is not mere puffery, but a determinate, verifiable statement about her company’s TVs;

and the CEO, however innocently, got the facts wrong.

But in the same set of circumstances, the second version 

would remain true. Just as she said, the CEO really did 

believe, when she made the statement, that her company’s

TVs had the sharpest picture around. And although a

plaintiff could later prove that opinion erroneous, the 

words “I believe” themselves admitted that possibility,

thus precluding liability for an untrue statement of fact. 

That remains the case if the CEO’s opinion, as here, concerned legal compliance. If, for example, she said, “I

believe our marketing practices are lawful,” and actually

did think that, she could not be liable for a false statement 

of fact—even if she afterward discovered a longtime violation of law. Once again, the statement would have been

true, because all she expressed was a view, not a certainty,

about legal compliance. 

That still leaves some room for §11’s false-statement 

provision to apply to expressions of opinion. As even 

Omnicare acknowledges, every such statement explicitly 

affirms one fact: that the speaker actually holds the stated

belief. See Brief for Petitioners 15–16; W. Keeton, D. 

Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the 

Law of Torts §109, p. 755 (5th ed. 1984) (Prosser and 

Keeton) (“[A]n expression of opinion is itself always a 

statement of . . . the fact of the belief, the existing state of 
8 OMNICARE, INC. v. LABORERS DIST. COUNCIL
 

CONSTR. INDUSTRY PENSION FUND 

Opinion of the Court 

mind, of the one who asserts it”). For that reason, the 

CEO’s statement about product quality (“I believe our TVs

have the highest resolution available on the market”) 

would be an untrue statement of fact—namely, the fact of 

her own belief—if she knew that her company’s TVs only 

placed second. And so too the statement about legal compliance (“I believe our marketing practices are lawful”) 

would falsely describe her own state of mind if she thought 

her company was breaking the law. In such cases, §11’s 

first part would subject the issuer to liability (assuming

the misrepresentation were material).2 

In addition, some sentences that begin with opinion

words like “I believe” contain embedded statements of 

fact—as, once again, Omnicare recognizes. See Reply

Brief 6. Suppose the CEO in our running hypothetical

said: “I believe our TVs have the highest resolution available because we use a patented technology to which our 

competitors do not have access.” That statement may be

read to affirm not only the speaker’s state of mind, as 

—————— 

2Our decision in Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg, 501 U. S. 

1083 (1991), qualifies this statement in one respect. There, the Court 

considered when corporate directors’ statements of opinion in a proxy

solicitation give rise to liability under §14(a) of the Securities Exchange 

Act, 15 U. S. C. §78n(a), which bars conduct similar to that described in 

§11. In discussing that issue, the Court raised the hypothetical possibility that a director could think he was lying while actually (i.e., 

accidentally) telling the truth about the matter addressed in his opinion. See Virginia Bankshares, 501 U. S., at 1095–1096. That rare set 

of facts, the Court decided, would not lead to liability under §14(a). See 

ibid. The Court reasoned that such an inadvertently correct assessment is unlikely to cause anyone harm and that imposing liability 

merely for the “impurities” of a director’s “unclean heart” might provoke vexatious litigation. Id., at 1096 (quoting Stedman v. Storer, 308 

F. Supp. 881, 887 (SDNY 1969)). We think the same is true (to the

extent this scenario ever occurs in real life) under §11. So if our CEO 

did not believe that her company’s TVs had the highest resolution on 

the market, but (surprise!) they really did, §11 would not impose 

liability for her statement. 
Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 9 

Opinion of the Court 

described above, but also an underlying fact: that the

company uses a patented technology. See Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg, 501 U. S. 1083, 1109 (1991) 

(SCALIA, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (showing that a statement can sometimes be “most 

fairly read as affirming separately both the fact of the 

[speaker’s] opinion and the accuracy of the facts” given to

support or explain it (emphasis deleted)). Accordingly,

liability under §11’s false-statement provision would

follow (once again, assuming materiality) not only if the 

speaker did not hold the belief she professed but also if the 

supporting fact she supplied were untrue. 

But the Funds cannot avail themselves of either of those 

ways of demonstrating liability. The two sentences to 

which the Funds object are pure statements of opinion: To 

simplify their content only a bit, Omnicare said in each 

that “we believe we are obeying the law.” And the Funds 

do not contest that Omnicare’s opinion was honestly held. 

Recall that their complaint explicitly “exclude[s] and 

disclaim[s]” any allegation sounding in fraud or deception. 

App. 273. What the Funds instead claim is that Omnicare’s belief turned out to be wrong—that whatever the

company thought, it was in fact violating anti-kickback 

laws. But that allegation alone will not give rise to liability under §11’s first clause because, as we have shown, a 

sincere statement of pure opinion is not an “untrue statement of material fact,” regardless whether an investor can 

ultimately prove the belief wrong. That clause, limited as 

it is to factual statements, does not allow investors to 

second-guess inherently subjective and uncertain assessments. In other words, the provision is not, as the Court 

of Appeals and the Funds would have it, an invitation to 

Monday morning quarterback an issuer’s opinions. 
 

10 OMNICARE, INC. v. LABORERS DIST. COUNCIL
 

CONSTR. INDUSTRY PENSION FUND 

Opinion of the Court 

III
 

A 

That conclusion, however, does not end this case because the Funds also rely on §11’s omissions provision,

alleging that Omnicare “omitted to state facts necessary”

to make its opinion on legal compliance “not misleading.”

App. 273; see §77k(a).3 As all parties accept, whether a

statement is “misleading” depends on the perspective of a 

reasonable investor: The inquiry (like the one into materiality) is objective. Cf. TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, 

Inc., 426 U. S. 438, 445 (1976) (noting that the securities 

laws care only about the “significance of an omitted or 

misrepresented fact to a reasonable investor”). We therefore must consider when, if ever, the omission of a fact can 

make a statement of opinion like Omnicare’s, even if 

literally accurate, misleading to an ordinary investor.

Omnicare claims that is just not possible. On its view, 

no reasonable person, in any context, can understand a 

pure statement of opinion to convey anything more than

the speaker’s own mindset. See Reply Brief 5–6. As long

as an opinion is sincerely held, Omnicare argues, it cannot 

mislead as to any matter, regardless what related facts 

the speaker has omitted. Such statements of belief (concludes Omnicare) are thus immune from liability under 

§11’s second part, just as they are under its first.4 

—————— 

3Section 11’s omissions clause also applies when an issuer fails to

make mandated disclosures—those “required to be stated”—in a 

registration statement. §77k(a). But the Funds do not object to Omnicare’s filing on that score. 4 In a different argument that arrives at the same conclusion, Omnicare maintains that §11, by its terms, bars only those omissions that 

make statements of fact—not opinion—misleading. See Reply Brief 3– 

5. The language of the omissions clause, however, is not so limited. It 

asks whether an omitted fact is necessary to make “statements” in “any

part of the registration statement” not misleading; unlike in §11’s first 

clause, here the word “statements” is unmodified, thus including both

fact and opinion. In any event, Omnicare’s alternative interpretation 
Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 11 

Opinion of the Court 

That claim has more than a kernel of truth. A reasonable person understands, and takes into account, the difference we have discussed above between a statement of fact 

and one of opinion. See supra, at 6–7. She recognizes the

import of words like “I think” or “I believe,” and grasps

that they convey some lack of certainty as to the statement’s content. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Contracts §168, Comment a, p. 456 (1979) (noting that a 

statement of opinion “implies that [the speaker] . . . is not 

certain enough of what he says” to do without the qualifying language). And that may be especially so when the 

phrases appear in a registration statement, which the

reasonable investor expects has been carefully wordsmithed 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.” And 

because she does so, the omission of a fact that merely

rebuts the latter statement fails to render the former 

misleading. In other words, a statement of opinion is not 

misleading just because external facts show the opinion to

be incorrect. Reasonable investors do not understand such 

statements as guarantees, and §11’s omissions clause 

therefore does not treat them that way.

But Omnicare takes its point too far, because a reasonable investor may, depending on the circumstances, understand an opinion statement to convey facts about how the

speaker has 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. Consider an unadorned 

—————— 

succeeds merely in rephrasing the critical issue. Omnicare recognizes

that every opinion statement is also a factual statement about the 

speaker’s own belief. See supra, at 7–8. On Omnicare’s view, the 

question thus becomes when, if ever, an omission can make a statement 

of that fact misleading to an ordinary investor. The following analysis 

applies just as well to that reformulation. 
 

12 OMNICARE, INC. v. LABORERS DIST. COUNCIL 

CONSTR. INDUSTRY PENSION FUND 

Opinion of the Court 

statement of opinion about legal compliance: “We believe

our conduct is lawful.” If the issuer makes that statement 

without having consulted a lawyer, it could be misleadingly

incomplete. In the context of the securities market, an 

investor, though recognizing that legal opinions can prove 

wrong in the end, still likely expects such an assertion to 

rest on some meaningful legal inquiry—rather than, say,

on mere intuition, however sincere.5 Similarly, if the

issuer made the statement in the face of its lawyers’ contrary advice, or with knowledge that the Federal Government was taking the opposite view, the investor again has

cause to complain: He expects not just that the issuer

believes the opinion (however irrationally), but that it 

fairly aligns with the information in the issuer’s possession at the time.6 Thus, 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 would take from 

the statement itself, then §11’s omissions clause creates 

liability.7 

—————— 

5 In some circumstances, however, reliance on advice from regulators 

or consistent industry practice might accord with a reasonable investor’s expectations. 6The hypothetical used earlier could demonstrate the same points.

Suppose the CEO, in claiming that her company’s TV had the highest 

resolution available on the market, had failed to review any of her 

competitors’ product specifications. Or suppose she had recently 

received information from industry analysts indicating that a new 

product had surpassed her company’s on this metric. The CEO may

still honestly believe in her TV’s superiority. But under §11’s omissions 

provision, that subjective belief, in the absence of the expected inquiry 

or in the face of known contradictory evidence, would not insulate her 

from liability. 7Omnicare contends at length that Virginia Bankshares forecloses 

this result, see Brief for Petitioners 16–21, relying on the following 

sentence: “A statement of belief may be open to objection . . . solely as a 

misstatement of the psychological fact of the speaker’s belief in what he

says,” 501 U. S., at 1095. But Omnicare’s argument plucks that state-
 

 

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 13 

Opinion of the Court 

An opinion statement, however, is not necessarily misleading when an issuer knows, but fails to disclose, some 

fact cutting the other way. Reasonable investors understand that opinions sometimes rest on a weighing of competing facts; indeed, the presence of such facts is one 

reason why an issuer may frame a statement as an opinion, thus conveying uncertainty. See supra, at 6–7, 11. 

Suppose, for example, that in stating an opinion about 

legal compliance, the issuer did not disclose that a single

junior attorney expressed doubts about a practice’s legality, when six of his more senior colleagues gave a stamp of 

approval. That omission would not make the statement of 

opinion misleading, even if the minority position ultimately proved correct: A reasonable investor does not 

expect that every fact known to an issuer supports its 

opinion statement.8 

—————— 

ment from its context and thereby transforms its meaning. Virginia 

Bankshares concerned an expression of opinion that the speaker did not 

honestly hold—i.e., one making an “untrue statement of fact” about the 

speaker’s own state of mind, §77k(a). See id., at 1090 (“[W]e interpret

the jury verdict as finding that the . . . directors did not hold the beliefs

or opinions expressed, and we confine our discussion to statements so

made”). The Court held that such a statement gives rise to liability

under §14(a) when it is also “false or misleading about its subject 

matter.” Id., at 1096. Having done so, the Court went on to consider

the rare hypothetical case, described in this opinion’s second footnote,

in which a speaker expresses an opinion that she does not actually

hold, but that turns out to be right. See supra, at 8, n. 2. The sentence 

Omnicare cites did no more than introduce that hypothetical; it was a

way of saying “someone might object to a statement—even when the

opinion it expressed proved correct—solely on the ground that it was 

disbelieved.” And the Court then held, as noted above, that such an 

objection would fail. See ibid. The language thus provides no support 

for Omnicare’s argument here. 8We note, too, that a reasonable investor generally considers the 

specificity of an opinion statement in making inferences about its basis.

Compare two new statements from our ever-voluble CEO. In the first, 

she says: “I believe we have 1.3 million TVs in our warehouse.” In the 

second, she says: “I believe we have enough supply on hand to meet 
 

14 OMNICARE, INC. v. LABORERS DIST. COUNCIL 

CONSTR. INDUSTRY PENSION FUND 

Opinion of the Court 

Moreover, whether an omission makes an expression of

opinion misleading always depends on context. Registration statements as a class are formal documents, filed with 

the SEC as a legal prerequisite for selling securities to the

public. Investors do not, and are right not to, expect opinions contained in those statements to reflect baseless, offthe-cuff judgments, of the kind that an individual might 

communicate in daily life. At the same time, an investor 

reads each statement within such a document, whether of 

fact or of opinion, in light of all its surrounding text, including hedges, disclaimers, and apparently conflicting

information. And the investor takes into account the 

customs and practices of the relevant industry. So 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.

The reasonable investor understands a statement of opinion in its full context, and §11 creates liability only for the

omission of material facts that cannot be squared with 

such a fair reading.

These principles are not unique to §11: They inhere, too,

in much common law respecting the tort of misrepresentation.9 The Restatement of Torts, for example, recognizes 

that “[a] statement of opinion as to facts not disclosed and 

not otherwise known to the recipient may” in some circumstances reasonably “be interpreted by him as an implied statement” that the speaker “knows facts sufficient

to justify him in forming” the opinion, or that he at least 

—————— 

demand.” All else equal, a reasonable person would think that a more

detailed investigation lay behind the former statement. 9Section 11 is, of course, “not coextensive with common-law doctrines 

of fraud”; in particular, it establishes “a stringent standard of liability,”

not dependent on proof of intent to defraud. Herman & MacLean v. 

Huddleston, 459 U. S. 375, 381, 388–389 (1983); see supra, at 2; infra, 

at 15, n. 11. But we may still look to the common law for its insights

into how a reasonable person understands statements of opinion. 
Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 15 

Opinion of the Court 

knows no facts “incompatible with [the] opinion.” Restatement (Second) of Torts §539, p. 85 (1976).10 When 

that is so, the Restatement explains, liability may result 

from omission of facts—for example, the fact that the

speaker failed to conduct any investigation—that rebut 

the recipient’s predictable inference. See id., Comment a, 

at 86; id., Comment b, at 87. Similarly, the leading treatise in the area explains that “it has been recognized very 

often that the expression of an opinion may carry with it 

an implied assertion, not only that the speaker knows no 

facts which would preclude such an opinion, but that he

does know facts which justify it.” Prosser and Keeton 

§109, at 760. That is especially (and traditionally) the 

case, the treatise continues, where—as in a registration

statement—a speaker “holds himself out or is understood 

as having special knowledge of the matter which is not 

available to the plaintiff.” Id., at 760–761 (footnote omitted); see Restatement (Second) of Torts §539, Comment b, 

at 86 (noting that omissions relating to an opinion’s basis

are “particularly” likely to give rise to liability when the

speaker has “special knowledge of facts unknown to the

recipient”); Smith v. Land and House Property Corp.,

[1884] 28 Ch. D. 7, 15 (App. Cas.) (appeal taken from Eng.) 

(opinion of Bowen, L. J.) (When “the facts are not equally 

known to both sides, then a statement of opinion by the

one who knows the facts best . . . impliedly states that [the 

speaker] knows facts which justify his opinion”).11 

—————— 

10The Restatement of Contracts, discussing misrepresentations that

can void an agreement, says much the same: “[T]he recipient of an 

assertion of a person’s opinion as to facts not disclosed” may sometimes

“properly interpret it as an assertion (a) that the facts known to that

person are not incompatible with his opinion, or (b) that he knows facts 

sufficient to justify him in forming it.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts §168, p. 455 (1979). 11 In invoking these principles, we disagree with JUSTICE SCALIA’s 

common-law-based opinion in two crucial ways. First, we view the 

common law’s emphasis on special knowledge and expertise as support-
 

 

 

16 OMNICARE, INC. v. LABORERS DIST. COUNCIL 

CONSTR. INDUSTRY PENSION FUND 

Opinion of the Court 

And the purpose of §11 supports this understanding of

how the omissions clause maps onto opinion statements. 

Congress adopted §11 to ensure that issuers “tell[ ] the 

whole truth” to investors. H. R. Rep. No. 85, 73d Cong.,

1st Sess., 2 (1933) (quoting President Roosevelt’s message

to Congress). For that reason, literal accuracy is not

enough: An issuer must as well desist from misleading

investors by saying one thing and holding back another. 

Omnicare would nullify that statutory requirement for all

sentences starting with the phrases “we believe” or “we 

think.” But those magic words can preface nearly any

conclusion, and the resulting statements, as we have

shown, remain perfectly capable of misleading investors.

See supra, at 11–12. Thus, Omnicare’s view would punch

a hole in the statute for half-truths in the form of opinion 

statements. And the difficulty of showing that such

statements are literally false—which requires proving an

issuer did not believe them, see supra, at 7–8—would 

make that opening yet more consequential: Were Omnicare right, companies would have virtual carte blanche to 

assert opinions in registration statements free from worry 

—————— 

ing, rather than contradicting, our view of what issuers’ opinion statements fairly imply. That is because an issuer has special knowledge of 

its business—including the legal issues the company faces—not available to an ordinary investor. Second, we think JUSTICE SCALIA’s reliance 

on the common law’s requirement of an intent to deceive is inconsistent

with §11’s standard of liability. As we understand him, JUSTICE SCALIA 

would limit liability for omissions under §11 to cases in which a speaker

“subjectively intend[s] the deception” arising from the omission, on

the ground that the common law did the same. Post, at 6 (opinion

concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (emphasis deleted).

But §11 discards the common law’s intent requirement, making omissions unlawful—regardless of the issuer’s state of mind—so long as 

they render statements misleading. See Herman & MacLean, 459 

U. S., at 382 (emphasizing that §11 imposes liability “even for innocent”

misstatements or omissions). The common law can help illuminate

when an omission has that effect, but cannot change §11’s insistence on

strict liability. See supra, at 14, n. 9. 
Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 17 

Opinion of the Court 

about §11. That outcome would ill-fit Congress’s decision 

to establish a strict liability offense promoting “full and 

fair disclosure” of material information. Pinter, 486 U. S., 

at 646; see supra, at 1–2. 

Omnicare argues, in response, that applying §11’s omissions clause in the way we have described would have 

“adverse policy consequences.” Reply Brief 17 (capitalization omitted). According to Omnicare, any inquiry into the

issuer’s basis for holding an opinion is “hopelessly amorphous,” threatening “unpredictable” and possibly “massive” liability. Id., at 2; Brief for Petitioners 34, 36. And 

because that is so, Omnicare claims, many issuers will

choose not to disclose opinions at all, thus “depriving

[investors] of potentially helpful information.” Reply Brief 

19; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 59–61. 

But first, that claim is, just as Omnicare labels it, one of

“policy”; and Congress gets to make policy, not the courts. 

The decision Congress made, for the reasons we have

indicated, was to extend §11 liability to all statements

rendered misleading by omission. In doing so, Congress

no doubt made §11 less cut-and-dry than a law prohibiting 

only false factual statements. Section 11’s omissions 

clause, as applied to statements of both opinion and fact,

necessarily brings the reasonable person into the analysis,

and asks what she would naturally understand a statement to convey beyond its literal meaning. And for expressions of opinion, that means considering the foundation she would expect an issuer to have before making the 

statement. See supra, at 11–12. All that, however, is a 

feature, not a bug, of the omissions provision. 

Moreover, Omnicare way overstates both the looseness 

of the inquiry Congress has mandated and the breadth of

liability that approach threatens. As we have explained, 

an investor cannot state a claim by alleging only that an 

opinion was wrong; the complaint must as well call into 

question the issuer’s basis for offering the opinion. See 
 

 

18 OMNICARE, INC. v. LABORERS DIST. COUNCIL
 

CONSTR. INDUSTRY PENSION FUND 

Opinion of the Court 

supra, at 11–12. And to do so, the investor cannot just say 

that the issuer failed to reveal its basis. Section 11’s 

omissions clause, after all, is not a general disclosure 

requirement; it affords a cause of action only when an

issuer’s failure to include a material fact has rendered a 

published statement misleading. To press such a claim,

an investor must allege that kind of omission—and not 

merely by means of conclusory assertions. See Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of 

the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice”). To be specific: The

investor 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. See supra, at 

11–14. That is no small task for an investor. 

Nor does the inquiry such a complaint triggers ask 

anything unusual of courts. Numerous legal rules hinge 

on what a reasonable person would think or expect. In 

requiring courts to view statements of opinion from an 

ordinary investor’s perspective, §11’s omissions clause

demands nothing more complicated or unmanageable.

Indeed, courts have for decades engaged in just that inquiry, with no apparent trouble, in applying the common 

law of misrepresentation. See supra, at 14–15. 

Finally, we see no reason to think that liability for 

misleading opinions will chill disclosures useful to investors. Nothing indicates that §11’s application to misleading factual assertions in registration statements has 

caused such a problem. And likewise, common-law doctrines of opinion liability have not, so far as anyone knows,

deterred merchants in ordinary commercial transactions 

from asserting helpful opinions about their products. That 

absence of fallout is unsurprising. Sellers (whether of 
Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 19 

Opinion of the Court 

stock or other items) have strong economic incentives to

. . . well, sell (i.e., hawk or peddle). Those market-based 

forces push back against any inclination to underdisclose. 

And to avoid exposure for omissions under §11, an issuer 

need only divulge an opinion’s basis, or else make clear the 

real tentativeness of its belief. Such ways of conveying

opinions so that they do not mislead will keep valuable 

information flowing. And that is the only kind of information investors need. To the extent our decision today 

chills misleading opinions, that is all to the good: In enacting §11, Congress worked to ensure better, not just more, 

information. 

B 

Our analysis on this score counsels in favor of sending 

the case back to the lower courts for decision. Neither 

court below considered the Funds’ omissions theory with 

the right standard in mind—or indeed, even recognized

the distinct statutory questions that theory raises. See 

supra, at 4–5. We therefore follow our ordinary practice of 

remanding for a determination of whether the Funds have

stated a viable omissions claim (or, if not, whether they 

should have a chance to replead).

In doing so, however, we reemphasize a few crucial

points pertinent to the inquiry on remand. Initially, as we

have said, the Funds cannot proceed without identifying 

one or more facts left out of Omnicare’s registration 

statement. See supra, at 17–18. The Funds’ recitation of 

the statutory language—that Omnicare “omitted to state 

facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading”—is not sufficient; neither is the Funds’ conclusory

allegation that Omnicare lacked “reasonable grounds for 

the belief ” it stated respecting legal compliance. App.

273–274. At oral argument, however, the Funds highlighted another, more specific allegation in their complaint: that an attorney had warned Omnicare that a 
 

20 OMNICARE, INC. v. LABORERS DIST. COUNCIL
 

CONSTR. INDUSTRY PENSION FUND 

Opinion of the Court 

particular contract “carrie[d] a heightened risk” of legal 

exposure under anti-kickback laws. Id., at 225 (emphasis 

omitted); see Tr. of Oral Arg. 42, 49; supra, at 4. On remand, the court must review the Funds’ complaint to

determine whether it adequately alleged that Omnicare 

had omitted that (purported) fact, or any other like it, 

from the registration statement. And if so, the court must 

determine whether the omitted fact would have been 

material to a reasonable investor—i.e., whether “there is a 

substantial likelihood that a reasonable [investor] would 

consider it important.” TSC Industries, 426 U. S., at 449. 

Assuming the Funds clear those hurdles, the court must

ask whether the alleged omission rendered Omnicare’s 

legal compliance opinions misleading in the way described 

earlier—i.e., because the excluded fact shows that Omnicare lacked the basis for making those statements that a

reasonable investor would expect. See supra, at 11–12. 

Insofar as the omitted fact at issue is the attorney’s warning, that inquiry entails consideration of such matters as 

the attorney’s status and expertise and other legal information available to Omnicare at the time. See supra, at 

13. Further, the analysis of whether Omnicare’s opinion is 

misleading must address the statement’s context. See 

supra, at 14. That means the court must take account of 

whatever facts Omnicare did provide about legal compliance, as well as any other hedges, disclaimers, or qualifications it included in its registration statement. The court 

should consider, for example, the information Omnicare

offered that States had initiated enforcement actions 

against drug manufacturers for giving rebates to pharmacies, that the Federal Government had expressed concerns

about the practice, and that the relevant laws “could “be

interpreted in the future in a manner” that would harm 

Omnicare’s business. See App. 95–96, 136–137; supra, at 3. 
 

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 21 

Opinion of the Court 

* * * 

With these instructions and for the reasons stated, we 

vacate the judgment below and remand the case for further proceedings. 

It is so ordered. 
_________________ 

_________________ 

 

 

 

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 1 

Opinion of SCALIA, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 13–435 

OMNICARE, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. LABORERS
 

DISTRICT COUNCIL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY 

PENSION FUND ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
 

[March 24, 2015]

 JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring in part and concurring in 

the judgment. 

Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 imposes liability

where a registration statement “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.” 15 U. S. C. §77k(a). I agree with the Court’s

discussion of what it means for an expression of opinion to

state an untrue material fact. But an expression of opinion implies facts (beyond the fact that the speaker believes

his opinion) only where a reasonable listener would understand it to do so. And it is only when expressions of 

opinion do imply these other facts that they can be “misleading” without the addition of other “material facts.”

The Court’s view would count far more expressions of 

opinion to convey collateral facts than I—or the common

law—would, and I therefore concur only in part.

The common law recognized that most listeners hear “I 

believe,” “in my estimation,” and other related phrases as 

disclaiming the assertion of a fact. Hence the (somewhat 

overbroad) common-law rule that a plaintiff cannot establish a misrepresentation claim “for misstatements of 

opinion, as distinguished from those of fact.” W. Keeton, 

D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on 
 

2 OMNICARE, INC. v. LABORERS DIST. COUNCIL
 

CONSTR. INDUSTRY PENSION FUND 

Opinion of SCALIA, J. 

Torts §109, p. 755 (5th ed. 1984) (Prosser & Keeton). A 

fraudulent misrepresentation claim based on an expression of opinion could lie for the one fact the opinion reliably conveyed: that the speaker in fact held the stated 

opinion. Restatement of Torts §525, Comment c, p. 60 

(1938). And, in some circumstances, the common law 

acknowledged that an expression of opinion reasonably 

implied “that the maker knows of no fact incompatible

with his opinion.” Id. §539(1), at 91. The no-factsincompatible-with-the-opinion standard was a demanding 

one; it meant that a speaker’s judgment had to “var[y] so 

far from the truth that no reasonable man in his position

could have such an opinion.” Restatement of Contracts 

§474(b), p. 902, and Comment b (1932). But without more, 

a listener could only reasonably interpret expressions of 

opinion as conveying this limited assurance of a speaker’s

understanding of facts.

In a few areas, the common law recognized the possibility that a listener could reasonably infer from an expression of opinion not only (1) that the speaker sincerely held

it, and (2) that the speaker knew of no facts incompatible

with the opinion, but also (3) that the speaker had a reasonable basis for holding the opinion. This exceptional 

recognition occurred only where it was “very reasonable or 

probable” that a listener should place special confidence in

a speaker’s opinion. Prosser & Keeton §109, at 760–761. 

This included two main categories, both of which were

carve-outs from the general rule that “the ordinary man

has a reasonable competence to form his own opinion,” and 

“is not justified in relying [on] the . . . opinion” of another. 

Restatement of Torts §542, Comment a, at 95. First, 

expressions of opinion made in the context of a relationship of trust, such as between doctors and patients. Second, expressions of opinion made by an expert in his capacity as an expert (for example, a jeweler’s statement of

opinion about the value of a diamond). These exceptions 
Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 3 

Opinion of SCALIA, J. 

allowed a listener to deal with those special expressions of

opinion as though they were facts. As the leading treatise

put it, “the ordinary man is free to deal in reliance upon 

the opinion of an expert jeweler as to the value of a diamond [or] of an attorney upon a point of law.” Prosser & 

Keeton §109, at 761. But what reasonable person would 

assume that a lawyer’s assessment of a diamond or a

jeweler’s opinion on a point of law implied an educated 

investigation?

The Court’s expansive application of §11’s omissions

clause to expressions of opinion produces a far broader 

field of misrepresentation; in fact, it produces almost the

opposite of the common-law rule. The Court holds that a 

reasonable investor is right to expect a reasonable basis

for all opinions in registration statements—for example,

the conduct of a “meaningful . . . inquiry,”—unless that is

sufficiently disclaimed. Ante, at 12, 14–15, 18–20. Take 

the Court’s hypothetical opinion regarding legal compliance. When a disclosure statement says “we believe our 

conduct is lawful,” ante, at 12, the Court thinks this 

should be understood to suggest that a lawyer was consulted, since a reasonable investigation on this point 

would require consulting a lawyer. But this approach is

incompatible with the common law, which had no “legal

opinions are different” exception. See Restatement of 

Torts §545, at 102.

It is also incompatible with common sense. It seems to 

me strange to suggest that a statement of opinion as 

generic as “we believe our conduct is lawful” conveys the

implied assertion of fact “we have conducted a meaningful 

legal investigation before espousing this opinion.” It is 

strange to ignore the reality that a director might rely on

industry practice, prior experience, or advice from regulators—rather than a meaningful legal investigation—in 

concluding the firm’s conduct is lawful. The effect of the 

Court’s rule is to adopt a presumption of expertise on all 
 

4 OMNICARE, INC. v. LABORERS DIST. COUNCIL
 

CONSTR. INDUSTRY PENSION FUND 

Opinion of SCALIA, J. 

topics volunteered within a registration statement. 

It is reasonable enough to adopt such a presumption for 

those matters that are required to be set forth in a registration statement. Those are matters on which the management of a corporation are experts. If, for example, the

registration statement said “we believe that the corporation has $5,000,000 cash on hand,” or “we believe the 

corporation has 7,500 shares of common stock outstanding,” the public is entitled to assume that the management 

has done the necessary research, so that the asserted

“belief ” is undoubtedly correct. But of course a registration statement would never preface such items, within the 

expertise of the management, with a “we believe that.” 

Full compliance with the law, however, is another matter.

It is not specifically required to be set forth in the statement, and when management prefaces that volunteered 

information with a “we believe that,” it flags the fact that

this is not within our area of expertise, but we think we

are in compliance.

Moreover, even if one assumes that a corporation issuing a registration statement is (by operation of law) an

“expert” with regard to all matters stated or opined about, 

I would still not agree with the Court’s disposition. The 

Court says the following: 

“Section 11’s omissions clause, as applied to statements 

of both opinion and fact, necessarily brings the reasonable person into the analysis, and asks what she would 

naturally understand a statement to convey beyond its

literal meaning. And for expressions of opinion, that 

means considering the foundation she would expect an 

issuer to have before making the statement.” Ante, at 17 

(emphasis added). 

The first sentence is true enough—but “what she [the

reasonable (female) person, and even he, the reasonable 

(male) person] would naturally understand a statement [of 

opinion] to convey” is not that the statement has the foun-
 

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 5 

Opinion of SCALIA, J. 

dation she (the reasonable female person) considers adequate. She is not an expert, and is relying on the advice of 

an expert—who ought to know how much “foundation” is

needed. She would naturally understand that the expert 

has conducted an investigation that he (or she or it) considered adequate. That is what relying upon the opinion

of an expert means.

The common law understood this distinction. An action 

for fraudulent misrepresentation based on an opinion of 

an expert* was only allowed when the expression of the 

opinion conveyed a fact—the “fact” that summarized the 

expert’s knowledge. Prosser and Keeton §109, at 761.

And a fact was actionable only if the speaker knew it was 

false, if he knew he did not know it, or if he knew the 

listener would understand the statement to have a basis 

that the speaker knew was not true. Restatement of Torts 

§526, at 63–64. Ah!, the majority might say, so a speaker 

is liable for knowing he lacks the listener’s reasonable 

basis! If the speaker knows—is actually aware—that the

listener will understand an expression of opinion to have a 

specific basis that it does not have, then of course he satisfies this element of the tort. 

But more often, when any basis is implied at all, both 

sides will understand that the speaker implied a “reasonable basis,” but honestly disagree on what that means. And 

the common law supplied a solution for this: A speaker was 

liable for ambiguous statements—misunderstandings—as 

—————— 

*At the time of the Act’s passage, the common law did not permit suit

for negligent misrepresentation under the circumstances here. An 

action for negligent misrepresentation resting upon a statement of 

opinion would lie only if the opinion—a professional opinion—was

“given upon facts equally well known to both the supplier and the

recipient.” Restatement of Torts §552, Comment b, at 123 (1938). That 

is of course not the situation here. The typical opinion “given upon

facts equally known to both the supplier and the recipient” is a lawyer’s 

legal advice on facts described by his client. 
 

 

 

6 OMNICARE, INC. v. LABORERS DIST. COUNCIL
 

CONSTR. INDUSTRY PENSION FUND 

Opinion of SCALIA, J. 

fraudulent misrepresentations only where he both knew of 

the ambiguity and intended that the listener fall prey to it. 

Id. §527, at 66. In other words, even assuming both parties 

knew (a prerequisite to liability) that the expression of

opinion implied a “reasonable investigation,” if the speaker 

and listener honestly disagreed on the nature of that investigation, the speaker was not liable for a fraudulent misrepresentation unless he subjectively intended the deception. 

And so in no circumstance would the listener’s belief of a 

“reasonable basis” control: If the speaker subjectively believes he lacks a reasonable basis, then his statement is 

simply a knowing misrepresentation. Id. §526(a), at 63. If 

he does not know of the ambiguity, or knows of it, but does

not intend to deceive, he is not liable. Id. §527, at 66. That 

his basis for belief was “objectively unreasonable” does not 

impart liability, so long as the belief was genuine. 

This aligns with common sense. When a client receives 

advice from his lawyer, it is surely implicit in that advice

that the lawyer has conducted a reasonable investigation—reasonable, that is, in the lawyer’s estimation. The 

client is relying on the expert lawyer’s judgment for the

amount of investigation necessary, no less than for the 

legal conclusion. To be sure, if the lawyer conducts an

investigation that he does not believe is adequate, he

would be liable for misrepresentation. And if he conducts 

an investigation that he believes is adequate but is objectively unreasonable (and reaches an incorrect result), he 

may be liable for malpractice. But on the latter premise 

he is not liable for misrepresentation; all that was implicit 

in his advice was that he had conducted an investigation 

he deemed adequate. To rely on an expert’s opinion is to 

rely on the expert’s evaluation of how much time to spend 

on the question at hand. 

The objective test proposed by the Court—inconsistent

with the common law and common intuitions about statements of opinion—invites roundabout attacks upon ex-
 

 

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 7 

Opinion of SCALIA, J. 

pressions of opinion. Litigants seeking recompense for a 

corporation’s expression of belief that turned out, after the 

fact, to be incorrect can always charge that even though

the belief rested upon an investigation the corporation

thought to be adequate, the investigation was not “objectively adequate.”

Nor is this objective test justified by §11’s absence of a 

mens rea requirement, as the Court suggests. Ante, at 15 

n.10. Some of my citation of the common law is meant to

illustrate when a statement of opinion contains an implied 

warranty of reasonable basis. But when it does so, the 

question then becomes whose reasonable basis. My illustration of the common-law requirements for misrepresentation is meant to show that a typical listener assumes

that the speaker’s reasonable basis controls. That showing is not contradicted by §11’s absence of a mens rea 

requirement.

Not to worry, says the Court. Sellers of securities need

“only divulge an opinion’s basis, or else make clear the 

real tentativeness of [their] belief[s].” Ante, at 18. One 

wonders what the function of “in my estimation” is, then, 

except as divulging such hesitation. Or what would be 

sufficient for the Court. “In my highly tentative estimation?” “In my estimation that, consistent with Omnicare, 

should be understood as an opinion only?” Reasonable 

speakers do not speak this way, and reasonable listeners

do not receive opinions this way. When an expert expresses 

an opinion instead of stating a fact, it implies (1) that

he genuinely believes the opinion, (2) that he believes his

basis for the opinion is sufficient, and (most important) (3)

that he is not certain of his result. Nothing more. This 

approach would have given lower courts and investors far 

more guidance and would largely have avoided the Funds’ 

attack upon Omnicare’s opinions as though Omnicare held 

those opinions out to be facts.

I therefore concur only in part and in the judgment. 
_________________ 

_________________ 

 

 

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 1 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 13–435 

OMNICARE, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. LABORERS
 

DISTRICT COUNCIL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY 

PENSION FUND ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
 

[March 24, 2015]

 JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in the judgment. 

I agree with the Court that the statements of opinion at 

issue in this case do not contain an untrue statement of a 

material fact. 15 U. S. C. §77k(a); ante, at 6–9. I write 

separately because I do not think it advisable to opine, as 

the majority does, on an additional theory of liability that 

is not properly before us.

The question whether and under what circumstances an

omission may make a statement of opinion misleading is 

one that we should have left to the lower courts to decide 

on remand. As the majority acknowledges, that question 

was never passed on below. See ante, at 19. With good

reason: Apart from a few conclusory allegations in their

complaint and some pro forma references to “misleading

statements and omissions” in their briefs, respondents did

not elaborate on the omissions theory of liability before 

either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. They

certainly did not articulate the theory the majority now 

adopts until they filed their merits brief before this Court.

And it was not until oral argument that they identified a 

factual allegation in their complaint that might serve to 

state a claim under that theory. See ante, at 19–20. This 

delay is unsurprising given that, although various Courts 

of Appeals have discussed the theory, they have been 
 

 

2 OMNICARE, INC. v. LABORERS DIST. COUNCIL
 

CONSTR. INDUSTRY PENSION FUND 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment
 

reluctant to commit to it. See MHC Mut. Conversion 

Fund, L. P. v. Sandler O’Neill & Partners, L. P., 761 F. 3d 

1109, 1116 (CA10 2014) (“[I]t is difficult to find many 

[courts] actually holding a security issuer liable on this

basis, . . . and . . . the approach has been questioned by

others on various grounds”); see also ibid., n. 5. 

We should exercise the same caution. This Court rarely

prides itself on being a pioneer of novel legal claims, as

“[o]urs is a court of final review and not first view.” Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (slip op., at 12) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, as a general 

rule, “we do not decide in the first instance issues not 

decided below.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

This includes fashioning innovative theories of liability as 

much as it includes applying those theories to the circumstances of the case. 

The Court has previously relied on a lower court’s failure to address an issue below as a reason for declining to

address it here, even when the question was fairly presented in the petition and fully vetted by other lower 

courts. See, e.g., CSX Transp., Inc. v. Alabama Dept. of 

Revenue, 562 U. S. 277, 284, n. 5 (2011); see also id., at 

303, n. 3 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Surely the feature that

distinguishes this case—a novel legal theory that is not 

fairly included in the question presented—counsels more

strongly in favor of avoidance.

 As JUSTICE SCALIA’s concurrence reveals, the scope of 

this theory of liability is far from certain. And the highly

fact-intensive nature of the omissions theory provides an 

additional reason not to address it at this time. The majority acknowledges that the facts a reasonable investor

may infer from a statement of opinion depend on the 

context. And yet it opines about certain facts an investor 

may infer from an issuer’s legal compliance opinion: that 

such an opinion is based on legal advice, for example, or 

that it is not contradicted by the Federal Government. 
Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 3 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

See ante, at 12. These inferences may seem sensible

enough in a vacuum, but lower courts would do well to 

heed the majority’s admonition that every statement of 

opinion must be considered “in a broader frame,” ante, at 

14, taking into account all the facts of the statement and

its context. Would that the majority had waited for the 

“broader frame” of an actual case before weighing in on

the omissions theory.