<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/09/18/second-circuit-opinion-on-class-actions-under-the-securities-act/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 13:53:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Second Circuit Opinion on Class Actions Under the Securities Act</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/09/18/second-circuit-opinion-on-class-actions-under-the-securities-act/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=second-circuit-opinion-on-class-actions-under-the-securities-act</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/09/18/second-circuit-opinion-on-class-actions-under-the-securities-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:16:53 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Registration statements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=33023?d=20150113140040EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On September 6, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important decision in NECA-IBEW Health &#38; Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs &#38; Co., 11-02762-cv (Sept 6, 2012) (“NECA-IBEW”), vacating in part the dismissal of a putative class action brought under §§ 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Brad S. Karp, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, on Tuesday, September 18, 2012 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;"><a href="http://www.paulweiss.com/professionals/partners-and-counsel/brad-s-karp.aspx" target="_blank">Brad Karp</a> is chairman and partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &amp; Garrison LLP. This post is based on a Paul Weiss client memorandum.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>On September 6, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important decision in <em>NECA-IBEW Health &amp; Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs &amp; Co.</em>, 11-02762-cv (Sept 6, 2012) (“<em>NECA-IBEW</em>”), vacating in part the dismissal of a putative class action brought under §§ 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act by an RMBS purchaser. The decision includes important holdings concerning both standing in the class action context and the standard for pleading a cognizable injury under the Securities Act. First, the Court ruled that, in some defined circumstances, purchasers of RMBS certificates have standing to assert claims on behalf of purchasers of certificates in other offerings. Second, the Court held that holders of a security need not allege an out-of-pocket loss to adequately plead damages under Section 11.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/09/18/second-circuit-opinion-on-class-actions-under-the-securities-act/#more-33023" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Second Circuit Opinion on Class Actions Under the Securities Act">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/09/18/second-circuit-opinion-on-class-actions-under-the-securities-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
