No more bullsh*t: securities opinions after Omnicare

Abstract

Purpose – To review and analyze the implications for rendering opinions in connection with the sale of securities in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Omnicare, Inc. et al. v. Laborers District Council Constr. Ind. Pension Fund, et al. Design/methodology/approach – Analyzes the Omnicare holding and dissent in light of past practices and decisions and discusses how the case changes the risks of liability for rendering opinions in registration statements, and by necessary implication in other contexts where the securities laws proscribe either the statement of untrue “facts” or, by omissions, the making of misleading “statements.” Findings – Omnicare opens issuers and securities professionals to liability for rendering opinions that are not reasonably based in facts and rationality. Because the measure of such reasonableness depends on the reasonable investor, makers of opinions will need to take more matters into consideration in rendering opinions than they might have previously, when the only test of an opinion was whether it was genuinely believed by its maker. This creates a number of unresolved issues, but it also suggests that prudence will dictate more detailed disclosure and documentation of the bases of opinions than has been thought necessary until now. Originality/value – Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.