The district court dismissed, for lack of standing, a
putative securities class action on behalf of all persons who acquired certain
mortgage-backed certificates issued under the same allegedly false and
misleading registration statement, but sold in 17 separate offerings by 17
unique prospectus supplements. The court
of appeals reversed: the plaintiff had class standing to assert the claims of
purchasers of certificates backed by mortgages originated by the same lenders
that originated the mortgages backing plaintiff’s certificates, because such
claims implicate “the same set of concerns” as plaintiff’s claims. As my informant points out, this is a weird
line for MBS (given the variety of lenders that could be involved), but perhaps
less significant for false advertising plaintiffs.
Friday, September 07, 2012
Standing in securities
NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs &
Co., No. 11-2762-cv 9 (2d Cir. Sept. 6, 2012)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment