Gallagher v. Abbott Laboratories
269 F.3d 806 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal securities laws establish a periodic, not continuous, disclosure system, and a company generally has no duty under Rule 10b-5 to update a prior, accurate periodic filing to reflect subsequent material events.
Facts:
- For years, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) repeatedly found manufacturing deficiencies at Abbott Laboratories' Diagnostic Division and issued warnings.
- On March 9, 1999, Abbott filed its annual Form 10-K report for 1998, which contained general statements about being subject to government regulation.
- On March 17, 1999, the FDA sent Abbott a letter demanding compliance with all regulatory requirements and threatening severe consequences.
- In April 1999, Abbott's CEO, Miles White, made optimistic statements at the annual shareholders' meeting regarding the future of the company's diagnostics business.
- By September 1999, the FDA was insisting on substantial penalties and changes to Abbott's business practices.
- On September 29, 1999, Abbott issued a press release describing the FDA's position and disclosing that the parties were engaged in settlement talks.
- On November 2, 1999, Abbott and the FDA entered into a consent decree requiring Abbott to withdraw 125 products from the market, improve quality control, and pay a $100 million civil fine.
Procedural Posture:
- Purchasers of Abbott Laboratories' securities filed class-action lawsuits against Abbott in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- The plaintiffs alleged Abbott committed securities fraud under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.
- The district court granted Abbott's motion and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a company commit securities fraud under Rule 10b-5 by failing to immediately disclose material, adverse information that arises after its most recent periodic filing, if that prior filing was accurate when made?
Opinions:
Majority - Easterbrook, Circuit Judge
No, a company does not commit securities fraud by failing to disclose such information because the federal securities laws do not impose a duty of continuous disclosure. Firms are entitled to remain silent about material information unless a specific positive law creates a duty to speak. The court distinguished between a 'duty to correct' a statement that was false when made and a 'duty to update' a statement that was true when made but became misleading due to subsequent events. Abbott's Form 10-K report was accurate on March 9, 1999, before it received the FDA's warning letter, so no duty to correct it arose. The securities laws do not impose a general duty to update periodic reports like the 10-K between filing dates. Furthermore, the CEO's statements at the annual meeting were either puffery or forward-looking statements not alleged to be knowingly false, and thus not fraudulent.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the distinction between the periodic disclosure system mandated by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and a hypothetical continuous disclosure system. The court's sharp line between the 'duty to correct' and the 'duty to update' provides significant protection for corporations against liability for remaining silent on material developments that occur between mandatory filing dates. This holding makes it more difficult for securities fraud plaintiffs to succeed on a theory of omission, as it clarifies that silence is not fraudulent unless there is a specific, affirmative duty to disclose, which does not include a general requirement to update past, accurate statements.
Unlock the full brief for Gallagher v. Abbott Laboratories