[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] their ruled [opinion, PDF] Tuesday in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Industry Pension Fund [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that a statement of opinion does not qualify as an “untrue statement” even if the opinion ultimately turns out to be incorrect. The federal government filed a claim against Omnicare [corporate website], a pharmacy services company, for allegedly receiving kickback payments from pharmaceutical manufacturers. This prompted members of a pension fund that purchased Omnicare stock to sue the company under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 [text, PDF]. In their complaint, the pension fund members argued that Omnicare’s statements of legal compliance were both material and untrue, and that the company omitted certain necessary facts. The court in its decision distinguished statements of fact and statements of opinion, finding that Section 11 of the act deals only with untrue statements of fact. Because the statements were opinion and not fact, the court found no liability under Section 11. The court held that there was no requirement to show subjective disbelief in the statements since the statements at issue were expressions of opinion. The court held, however, the the lower courts had examined the issue under the wrong standard, and remanded the case to determine whether Omnicare may be liable for misleading through omission.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in this case in November after granting certiorari [JURIST reports] last March. Tuesday’s ruling resolves a split among the circuits