What exactly is the difference between an auditors opinion and a statement of fact?

In her opinion, Judge Forrest wrote that: Section 10 and 11 claims regarding opinion statements require the statement was both objectively false at the time that it was made and also subjectively false that is, that defendants did not honestly believe the statements when they made them. Do you believe subjective falsity is a proper standard of care? What if the auditors did honestly believe the statements when they made them but failed to uncover the evidence needed to objectively determine that a material misstatement existed in the financial statements or ICFR. Should they be able to escape legal liability under Section 10(b) or Section 11?

Do you believe the rulings in Omnicare and Puda Coal swing the pendulum too far in the direction of the auditors with respect to when they can be held legally liable for violations of Section 10b and Section 11? Explain