On September 6, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal of RMBS claims against Goldman Sachs and related entities based on lack of standing and failure to state a claim.  The court addressed a named plaintiff’s standing to assert class claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on mortgage-backed securities from offerings or tranches it did not purchase.  Reversing the district court’s decision, the Second Circuit held that plaintiffs have standing to represent classes of investors who purchased mortgage-backed securities from different tranches than those purchased by the named plaintiff, or even under different prospectus supplements, as long as the securities were backed by mortgages originated by the same lenders and the claims are based on “similar or identical misrepresentations in the Offering Documents.”  The court also held that the plaintiff had adequately pled a decline in the value of the securities, despite the absence of any allegation that the relevant trusts had defaulted on any distribution of principal or interest.  Decision.