The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' allegations do not create a sufficient nexus between the alleged underwriting standard abandonment and the loans underlying the certificates. See Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion at 28 (quoting In re IndyMac Mortgage–Backed Sec. Litig., 718 F.Supp.2d 495, 510 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (Kaplan, J.)). The authority the Defendants cite states that the plaintiffs in that case met this requirement by alleging that the loan originator's “widespread abandonment of its underwriting guidelines [occurred] during the relevant time period” and “that the percentage of defaulting loans rose after the Certificates were issued.”

In the sole case on which the plaintiff relies to support its Section 12(a)(2) claim, by contrast, the plaintiffs alleged that they “purchased the Certificates ‘pursuant to’ the relevant Offering Documents” and some of the dates of purchase “corresponded to the initial offering dates.” In re IndyMac Mortg.-Backed Sec. Litig., 718 F.Supp.2d 495, 502 (S.D.N.Y.2010). The plaintiff makes no such allegations in this case.

In the sole case on which the plaintiff relies to support its Section 12(a)(2) claim, by contrast, the plaintiffs alleged that they "purchased the Certificates `pursuant to' the relevant Offering Documents" and some of the dates of purchase "corresponded to the initial offering dates."In re IndyMac Mortg.-Backed Sec. Litig., 718 F. Supp. 2d 495, 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). The plaintiff makes no such allegations in this case.

As relevant here, IndyMac MBS issued securities known as mortgage pass-through certificates (“Certificates”) “in 106 different offerings pursuant to three registration statements and the related prospectuses and prospectus supplements.” In reIndyMac, 718 F.Supp.2d 495, 498 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (“ IndyMac I ”). The Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit (“Detroit PFRS”) and the Wyoming State Treasurer and the Wyoming Retirement System (jointly, “Wyoming” or “Wyoming entities”) commenced two separate putative class actions against the IndyMac defendants on behalf of asserted class members who had purchased Certificates in some of the 106 offerings.

Here, "plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts from which [it can be] infer[red] that these exceptions apply," and do not argue that any of the traditional bases for disregarding corporate separateness, e.g., alter ego, apply. See IndyMac Mortgage Backed Sec. Litig., 718 F.Supp.2d 495, 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Bowoto, 312 F.Supp.2d at 1235 ("The party seeking to disregard the corporate form bears the burden of showing that there are good reasons for doing so"). Instead, plaintiffs allege that BofA purchased Merrill Lynch in 2009, and that Merrill Lynch then merged into BofA.

The only substantive claims set forth in the SACC that were allowed to proceed were the Section 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 claims based on IndyMac Bank's alleged abandonment of its underwriting standards. In re IndyMac Mortg.-Backed Sec. Litig., 718 F.Supp.2d 495 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (" IndyMac I " ). IndyMac I, 718 F.Supp.2d at 500-02, 508.

If the potential plaintiff makes an inquiry when that duty arises, the one-year statute of limitations begins to run when a plaintiff “in the exercise of reasonable diligence[ ] should have discovered” the violation. Lentell v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 396 F.3d 161, 168 (2d Cir.2005), accord In re IndyMac Mortgage–Backed Securities Litigation, 718 F.Supp.2d 495, 502–03 (S.D.N.Y.2010). Where, on the other hand, the plaintiff fails to investigate, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the storm warnings triggered the duty to inquire.

Claims must be dismissed for a lack of standing where, as here, the "plaintiffs have not alleged any injury traceable to the Certificates issued . . . ." In re Lehman Bros. Secs. and ERISA Litig., 684 F. Supp. 2d 485, 491 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); see also City of Ann Arbor Emps. Ret. System v. Citigroup Mortg. Loan Trust Inc., 703 F. Supp. 2d 253, 260 (E.D.N.Y. 2010); Massachusetts Bricklayers and Masons Funds and the Pipefitters' Ret. Fund Local v. Deutsche Alt-A Secs., No. 08-3178, 2010 WL 1370962 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2010); New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Novastar Mortg., Inc., No. 08-5310, 2011 WL 1338195 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2011); In re Indymac Mortgage-Backed Secs. Litig., 718 F. Supp. 2d 495 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Public Emps. Ret. System of Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 714 F. Supp. 2d 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Residential Capital, LLC, No. 08-8781, 2010 WL 1257528 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2010); New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. DLJ Mortg. Capital, Inc., No. 08-5653, 2010 WL 1473288 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010); New Jersey Carpenters Vacation Fund v. Royal Bank of Scotland Grp., PLC, 720 F. Supp. 2d 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); In re Lehman Bros. Secs. and ERISA Litig., 684 F. Supp. 2d 485, 491 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Plumbers' Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund v. Nomura Asset Acceptance Corp., 632 F.3d 762 (1st Cir. 2011).

Claims must be dismissed for a lack of standing where, as here, the "plaintiffs have not alleged any injury traceable to the Certificates issued . . . ." In re Lehman Bros. Secs. and ERISA Litig., 684 F. Supp. 2d 485, 491 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); see also City of Ann Arbor Emps. Ret. System v. Citigroup Mortg. Loan Trust Inc., 703 F. Supp. 2d 253, 260 (E.D.N.Y. 2010); Massachusetts Bricklayers and Masons Funds and the Pipefitters' Ret. Fund Local v. Deutsche Alt-A Secs., No. 08-3178, 2010 WL 1370962 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2010); New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Novastar Mortg., Inc., No. 08-5310, 2011 WL 1338195 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2011); In re Indymac Mortgage-Backed Secs. Litig., 718 F. Supp. 2d 495 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Public Emps. Ret. System of Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 714 F. Supp. 2d 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Residential Capital, LLC, No. 08-8781, 2010 WL 1257528 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2010); New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. DLJ Mortg. Capital, Inc., No. 08-5653, 2010 WL 1473288 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010); New Jersey Carpenters Vacation Fund v. Royal Bank of Scotland Grp., PLC, 720 F. Supp. 2d 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); In re Lehman Bros. Secs. and ERISA Litig., 684 F. Supp. 2d 485, 491 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Plumbers' Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund v. Nomura Asset Acceptance Corp., 632 F.3d 762 (1st Cir. 2011).

A majority of district courts in this Circuit have agreed with the First Circuit, permitting claims under §§ 11 & 12(a)(2) of the '33 Act to proceed where the plaintiff has provided a “fairly specific” account of how the relevant underwriters had systematically disregarded the guidelines disclosed in a security's registration statement. Id.; see In re Morgan Stanley Mortg. Pass–Through Certificates Litig., 810 F.Supp.2d 650, 672 (S.D.N.Y.2011); Emps.' Ret. Sys. of the Gov't of the V.I. v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 804 F.Supp.2d 141, 152–53 (S.D.N.Y.2011); In re IndyMac Mortg.-Backed Sec. Litig., 718 F.Supp.2d 495, 509–10 (S.D.N.Y.2010); Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys. of Miss. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 714 F.Supp.2d 475, 483 (S.D.N.Y.2010); N.J. Carpenters Health Fund v. Residential Capital LLC, No. 08 Civ 8781(HB), 2010 WL 1257528, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2010); N.J. Carpenters Health Fund v. DLJ Mortg. Capital, Inc., No. 08 Civ 5653(PAC), 2010 WL 1473288, at *6–*7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010).