Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Industry Pension Fund

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding in the context of a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 that whether a statement is “misleading” is determined from “the perspective of a reasonable investor”
• “[A corporation]’s statement that . . . ‘we . . . are following the law’ . . . is materially false, no matter what the [corporation] thinks, if instead it is violating an anti-kickback statute.” (other internal quotation marks omitted)
• “reasonable investor” interprets statements “fairly and in 15 context”
• “The investor must identify particular (and material

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).