In the latest edition of the law firm’s annual report, Sidley Austin takes a detailed look at important securities litigation developments in 2020 relating to life sciences companies. The report includes not only a review of life sciences companies’ securities litigation class action filings trends but also examines life sciences companies’ track record in the courts, on motions to dismiss in the district courts and on appeal. The law firm’s report, entitled “Securities Class Actions in the Life Sciences Sector: 2020 Annual Survey” can be found here. The law firm’s two-page report summary can be found here.
Continue Reading A Detailed Look at 2020 Securities Litigation Against Life Sciences Companies

paul weiss largeIn the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 24, 2015 opinion in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund (here), there was a great deal of speculation about what the decision’s practical impact would be and how the case would be applied in the lower courts. On March 4, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an important opinion in Tongue v. Sanofi (here) interpreting and applying Omnicare. In the following guest post, the Paul Weiss law firm take a look at the Sanofi decision and discuss Second Circuit’s narrow interpretation and application of Omnicare, and the Second Circuit’s holding that issuers need not disclose information merely because it cuts against their opinions or projections. I would like to thank the attorneys from Paul Weiss for their willingness to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the Paul Weiss attorneys’ guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Second Circuit Ruling in Sanofi Narrowly Interprets Omnicare

supct2014In its March 2015 decision in the Omnicare v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund (here), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an issuer may be liable for opinions set forth in a registration statement if the issuer did not genuinely hold the stated opinion, or if the issuer failed to disclose material facts relating to the foundation for the opinion, as discussed here. Because the Omnicare decision was made with respect to claims under the liability provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, one of the questions that arose following the Court’s decision was whether and to what extent the principles the Court enunciated are applicable to securities fraud actions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In an interesting article entitled “False Statements of Belief as Securities Fraud” (here), University of Idaho Law Professor Wendy Gerwick Couture takes a look at these questions and argues that the Omnicare’s holding with respect to statements of opinion analytically should apply equally to securities fraud claims under Section 10 of the ’34 Act as to prospectus liability claims under Section 11 of the ’33 Act. A summary version of Professor Couture’s article appeared on October 28, 2015 on the CLS Blue Sky Blog (here).  
Continue Reading Does the Omnicare’s Holding Regarding Opinion Apply to Securities Fraud Claims?

kaganIn a March 24, 2015 opinion in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund (here), the U.S. Supreme Court set aside the Sixth Circuit’s ruling that allegations of “objective falsity” were sufficient to make a statement of opinion in securities offering documents actionable. The Supreme Court remanded the case to

skadden_logo_noLLP_bigAs I discuss in the accompanying post, on March 24, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issues its opinion in the Omnicare case. In the following guest post, the Skadden law firm summarizes the case and its holding. A version of the guest post previously was published as a Skadden client alert. I would like