Last week, the Sixth Circuit issued a ruling which defined the standard in the Sixth Circuit for liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, created a circuit split, and likely garnered the attention of the Supreme Court.
In Indiana State District Council et al. v. Omnicare, Inc., 2013 WL 2248970 (6th Cir. May 23, 2013), the Court ruled that a plaintiff bringing a Section 11 claim was not required to plead knowledge of the false statement by the issuer or signer of a registration statement, and that simply alleging that the statement was false or materially misleading was sufficient. Although the Court previously ruled that Rule 9(b) pleading standards apply in alleging a Section 11 claim, the Omnicare Court reasoned that Section 11 is still a strict liability statute and that “[n]o matter the framing, once a false statement has been made, a defendant’s knowledge is not relevant to a strict liability claim.”
The Court focused on what it considered “soft information” disclosures and distinguished between liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and liability under Section 11 for such disclosures. The Court concluded that soft information disclosures regarding “legal compliance” were potentially actionable -- but also concluded that disclosures regarding “compliance with GAAP” were not soft information disclosures because “[t]hese are allegations of hard facts.”
The Court recognized that its ruling conflicted with decisions from the Second and Ninth Circuits, which require both objective and subjective falsity and disbelief at the time the allegations in the registration statement are made. See Fait v. Regions Financial Corp., 655 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2011) and Rubke v. Capitol Bancorp Ltd., 551 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court, however, declined to follow these decisions and presented its own analysis.
The Omnicare decision creates an acknowledged circuit split, which the Supreme Court may resolve if Omnicare chooses to seek certiorari review.
Topics/Tags
Select- Litigation
- Class Action Litigation
- Appellate Law
- Cybersecurity and Privacy Law
- Data Breach
- E-Discovery
- Securities Law
- Coronavirus
- Sixth Circuit
- Supreme Court
- Intellectual Property
- Social Media
- Trademark
- Trademark Litigation
- Initial Coin Offering
- Bet-the-Company Litigation
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- Antitrust
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Employment Law
- Workplace Accommodations
- ESI
- Employer Policies
- Labor & Employment Law
- Labor Law
- Technology
- ERISA
- Stock Drop
- Cryptocurrency
- GDPR
- General Data Protection Regulation
- SEC
- Securities Litigation
- Ascertainability
- Craft Brewing
- Cybersecurity Regulation
- Drug Enforcement Agency
- Medical Marijuana
- Ohio Foreclosure Reform
- Copyright Law
- Environmental Law
- Fair Housing Act
- Health Care Act
- Healthcare Reform
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Religion Discrimination
- Seventh Circuit
- Accommodation
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Cyber Insurance
- EEOC
- Electronically Stored Information
- FLSA
- Proportionality
- Telecommuting
- Business Process Improvement
- Employer Handbook
- Employer Rules
- Employment Litigation
- Lenders
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- NLRB
- Receivership Statute
- Unions
- E-Discovery Project Plan
- Evidence
- Predictive Coding
- TAR ( Technology Assisted Review)
- Quality Representation
- Subpoena
- Arbitration
- CAFA
- Land Use & Zoning
- Construction Litigation
- Privacy
- Statute of Limitations
- Taxation
- Federal Rule
Recent Posts
- Agency Deference Loses its Luster Under Ohio Law—Is Interpretation of Administrative Statutes Ohio's Next Legal Hot Topic?
- United States Supreme Court Clarifies Boundaries of Federal Civil Rule 60(b)
- Motion for Reconsideration in an Appeal: Sometimes the Court will Reconsider if you Argue its Initial Decision was Just Wrong
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez and the Impact on Class Action Litigation
- Questioning the Questionnaires: New PPP-Related Litigation Raises Issues for Borrowers
- "You Don't Have to Go Home But You Can't Stay Here": Updates to Ohio and Kentucky’s COVID-19 Orders Impacting Bars & Restaurants
- Kentucky Restaurants Begin Opening with Limited Capacity Amid COVID-19 Epidemic
- Ohio Restaurants and Bars Begin Soft Openings for Diners Amid COVID-19 Epidemic
- Supreme Court Sidesteps “Cy Pres” Challenge
- Golfers, New and Old - Be Careful!