We previously reported on the decision of the Second Circuit permitting a class plaintiff to sue on behalf of purchasers of the offering of RMBS that it purchased, as well as RMBS in other offerings that it did not purchase. NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 693 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2012). On March 18, 2013, the Supreme Court declined the petition for a writ of certiorari to review the NECA decision. Also, in New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC, 709 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2013), another panel of the Second Circuit followed the NECA ruling, and vacated the district court’s decision, which had held that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue on behalf of purchasers of securities the plaintiffs did not purchase, and it remanded the case for reconsideration in light of NECA.
Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.
Questions? Please contact firstname.lastname@example.orgRegister
Second Circuit applies class standing rule, which Supreme Court declines to review
Popular articles from this firm
If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email email@example.com.
Related topic hubs
Senior Corporate Lawyer
Canon Australia Pty Ltd
"I love the service. It’s a terrific time saver, very practical, very relevant, and very up-to-date. The best new legal resource I’ve come across in a long time. And free to boot! Please keep providing it."