In an opinion today, Judge Forrest allowed an investor to proceed with a suit against the trustee of a mortgage-backed security trust.  She found that Rule 8 was satisfied in this context, even though the complaint did not refer to specific loans or say how any particular loan was a breach of the representations, because the plaintiff based the complaint on broad public knowledge and prior litigation and investigations:

[T]he RMBS context provides a rather unusual set of circumstances in which there has been significant litigation and investigations into the practices—broadly construed—of a variety of actors, and findings made. Those findings are of course ultimately specific to the facts investigated—but when the question is one of plausibility of allegations, plaintiffs may ride the coattails of some of this work. Down the road, at trial, they will be put to their proof. At that point, relying on wrongs elsewhere demonstrated would be insufficient. . . . Plaintiffs are advised that they will need more at trial—and perhaps even for summary judgment.