Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP v. Countrywide Financial Corp., 802 F. Supp. 2d 1125

ABP purchased RMBS from 15 offerings issued 2004–2007, in a securities action against Countrywide, Individual, Underwriter, and Bank of America defendants.
FAC added Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims and three California state-law claims, expanding beyond the Original Complaint (2010).
Court held Counts VI–VIII barred by the statute of repose absent tolling; Counts I, II, V, IX, X time-barred; Counts III–IV time-barred.
Plaintiff may amend within 30 days, but must address tolling specifics and Luther-based connections for each security.
Relation-back arguments for 10(b) claims were waived; a February 14, 2011 threshold date was established for fraud-based claims.
Court outlined tolling and notice standards and considered public complaints and press reports as factors in accrual of §10(b) claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are §§11/12(a)(2) claims barred by the repose period?	Luther tolling could extend time.	No tolling; repose not tolled for Luther securities.	Time-barred; dismissal with leave to amend detailing tolling.
Do §15 claims survive without viable underlying §11/12(a)(2) claims?	Derivative liability may still attach.	No §15 without viable underlying §11/12(a)(2).	Dismissed; may amend if tolling supports §15 for certain offerings.
Do §10(b) claims relate back to the Original Complaint?	Relation back should apply to fraud-based claims.	Relation back waived; February 14, 2011 is threshold.	Relation back waived; threshold date Feb. 14, 2011.
Do §20(a) claims survive without a predicate violation?	Predicate §10(b) claims already asserted.	No predicate, so §20(a) fails.	Dismissed for lack of predicate violation.
Are state-law fraud and aiding-and-abetting claims timely?	Discovery rule extends timeline; ongoing investigations show tolling.	Inquiry notice by late 2007–2008 suffices.	Dismissed as untimely under discovery rule; timely threshold Feb. 14, 2008.

Fields v. Legacy Health Sys., 413 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2005) (distinguishes statutes of repose from limitations)
Epstein v. Washington Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 1996) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (S. Ct. 2007) (plausibility standard for allegations)
City of Pontiac General Employees’ Retirement System v. MBIA, Inc., 637 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2011) (statute of limitations accrual; reasonable investor standard)
Betz v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 610 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2010) (burden of proof on statute of limitations at pleading stage)
In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Securities Litig., 588 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (sufficiency of §10(b) misrepresentation allegations)
Percy v. San Francisco General Hosp., 841 F.2d 975 (9th Cir. 1988) (relation back and core facts consideration)
In Ames Department Stores, Inc. Note Litig., 991 F.2d 968 (2d Cir. 1993) (debt vs. equity notice distinctions in accrual)
Lindner Dividend Fund, Inc. v. Ernst & Young, 880 F. Supp. 49 (D. Mass. 1995) (American Pipe tolling and notice considerations)