In NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 693 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2012) (No. 11-2762), plaintiff union sued to assert class claims on behalf of purchasers of mortgage backed securities issued pursuant to a single shelf registration, but sold in separate offerings pursuant to 17 unique prospectuses.  The district court held plaintiff lacked standing to sue on behalf of holders of securities issued by the 15 trusts from which it did not purchase securities inasmuch as each prospectus contained disclosures and information unique to the particular offering.  On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed.  The court held plaintiff had Article 3 standing to sue in its own right because it had plausibly suffered a loss as a result of the misleading statements concerning the securities it did purchase.  Whether plaintiff had “class standing – that is, standing to sue on behalf of a class of purchasers of certificates from other offerings – was not a matter for a motion to dismiss, but was to be considered under Rule 23.  The Second Circuit held that a plaintiff in a putative class action has class standing if the plaintiff plausibly alleges some actual injury as a result of the conduct of the defendant and the conduct implicates “the same set of concerns” as the conduct alleged to have caused injury to the other members of the class by the same defendants.  In this case, the court concluded plaintiffs alleged nearly identical misrepresentations were made in all the offering documents.  Thus, plaintiff had class standing to sue on behalf of all 17 offerings based on the same shelf registration, not simply the two it purchased.